Phylogenetic Paleobiology: Phenotypic Diversification and Evolutionary Radiation in
Paleozoic Crinoids
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
David F. Wright
Graduate Program in Geological Sciences
The Ohio State University
2016
Dissertation Committee:
William I. Ausich, Advisor
Matthew R. Saltzman
Lawrence A. Krissek
John V. Freudenstein
Copyrighted by
David F. Wright
2016
Abstract
Phylogenetic paleobiology is an interdisciplinary research program at the nexus of
paleontology, systematics, and evolutionary biology. Specifically, phylogenetic
paleobiology integrates the deep-time data, techniques, and geologic perspectives of paleontology with phylogeny-based statistical and computational approaches in macroevolutionary biology. Chapters contained within this dissertation revolve around two primary themes: (1) understanding patterns of biodiversity change over geologic time, and (2) assembling a clearer picture of the phylogeny, evolution, and geologic history of marine invertebrates, especially the Crinoidea (Echinodermata).
Under the umbrella of phylogenetic paleobiology, the primary objective of this dissertation is to help bridge the disciplinary gap between specimen-based paleontology
and statistical approaches in phylogenetic comparative methods. The chapters herein use
advanced statistical phylogenetic methods, such as Bayesian “tip-dating” approaches, to
infer phylogenetic trees of fossil species, quantify rates of phenotypic evolution, and
document patterns of morphospace occupation among fossil members of the Crinoidea
(Echinodermata).
In addition to these broader studies, a major taxonomic revision of fossil and extant Crinoidea (Echinodermata) is proposed herein, as well as taxonomic description of
a new genus of fossil crinoid from the Ordovician (Katian) of Ontario.
ii
This work is jointly (and lovingly) dedicated to (1) my parents, for being supportive of my decision to pursue academic interests; (2) to my wife Lena, for her encouragement, friendship, and kindness; and (3) to my dog Gluey, for showing me how beautiful the
world can be.
iii
Acknowledgments
This dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance and support
of many individuals. I would like to thank to following people for their gracious
assistance to museum collections: K. Hollis (United States Museum of Natural History),
T. Ewin (Natural History Museum), P. Mayer (Field Museum of Natural History), and K.
Riddigton (Lapworth Museum of Geology). J. Koniecki is thanked for collecting and generously donating specimens used in this dissertation. This dissertation was supported by numerous student research grants, including those from the Paleontological Society,
Sigma Xi, the Palaeontological Association, the American Federation of Mineralogical and Geological Societies, the Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences, Friends of
Orton Hall, and a Presidential Fellowship from The Ohio State University. Additional support for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation’s Assembling the Echinoderm Tree of Life (DEB 10364116) to W.I. Ausich.
I have been very fortunate in my academic career to have had wonderful and gracious academic mentors who have helped guide my path. Greg Farley is thanked for igniting my earliest interests in science (pretty late by most standards!), letting me borrow his personal copy of S.J. Gould’s The Flamingo’s Smile, and encouraging me to seek a university degree. Bruce Lieberman is thanked for warmly encouraging my interests in macroevolutionary biology and paleontology when I was an undergraduate at the
iv
University of Kansas. I thank Alycia Stigall for her delightful (and highly contagious) enthusiasm for specimen-based paleontology. I cannot overstate how much my academic trajectory benefited from her guidance and training when I was a M.Sc. student at Ohio
University. Alycia has continued to be a mentor and I thank her for her support and friendship. I would especially like to thank my Ph.D. advisor, Bill Ausich, for his invaluable (and seemingly encyclopaedic) knowledge of fossil crinoids and willingness to have a scientific discussion with me at a moment’s notice. Bill has been an excellent
Ph.D. advisor, mentor, and friend. Most of all, I thank Bill for instilling in me a passion for studying fossil crinoids and introducing me to the delectable wonder of Bell’s Two-
Hearted Ale.
Many ideas presented in this dissertation were greatly aided through informal conversations with friends and colleagues over the years, including Dave Bapst, Tom
Baumiller, Lena Cole, Tom Kammer, David Polly, Dan Rabosky, Graham Slater, Jeff
Thompson, and Peter Wagner. I would also like to thank those who provided specific feedback on earlier drafts of the chapters presented herein and/or peer-reviewed the published portions of this dissertation, including W.I. Ausich, S.R. Cole, A.
Gavryushkina, T.W. Kammer, G.D. Sevastopulo, G.J. Slater, and two anonymous reviewers. Stig Bergström and Dale Gnidovic are thanked for contributing an atmosphere of fossil-based comraderie that makes me proud to have been a part of Ohio State paleontology.
I am thankful to have participated in several workshops that greatly improved my programming skills in R and led to my better understanding of analytical approaches in
v
the fields of paleontology and phylogenetic biology. I would like to thank the organizers,
instructors, and fellow participants of the 2013 Analytical Methods in Paleobiology
course held in Sydney, Australia; the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center sponsored
“Paleobiological and Phylogenetic Approaches to Macroevolution” course held in
Durham, NC; the Computational Macroevolution workshop at the 2015 meeting of the
Society of Systematic Biologists in Ann Arbor, MI; and the “Phylogeny developeR
bootcamp” held at the University of Massachusetts Boston’s field station in Nantucket,
MA.
I thank Lena Cole for putting up with my perambulating (and at times
incomprehensible) vocalizations on various topics related to this dissertation. No one has listened to me ramble, rant, and think out loud about inferring phylogenies, statistical methods, comparative biology, and macroevolution more than her. Lena also read and helped edit my manuscript drafts and generously provided assistance with specimen illustration and photography. I have greatly benefited from her company both in and out of the office and will always appreciate her accompanying me on my daily walks to get coffee. I especially thank Lena for being my best friend, office mate, colleague, and loving spouse.
I’ve never been able to relate to the well-circulated blog posts and comics on social media that promulgate the stereotype of unhappy, disgruntled graduate students.
My experience has been the exact opposite. These four years as a Ph.D. student at Ohio
State have been the best of my life. Many thanks to all of those whom I have not
mentioned yet were a part of this wonderful experience. Cheers. –Davey
vi
Vita
2010...... B.S. Geology, University of Kansas
2012...... M.S. Geological Sciences, Ohio University
2012 to 2016 ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, School of
Earth Sciences, The Ohio State University
2016 to present ...... Presidential Fellow, The Ohio State
University
Publications
Wright, D.F., W.I. Ausich, S.R. Cole, M.E. Peter, and E.C. Rhenberg, in press, Phylogenetic taxonomy and classification of the Crinoidea (Echinodermata). Journal of Paleontology.
Wright, D.F. in press, Bayesian estimation of fossil phylogenies and the evolution of early to middle Paleozoic crinoids (Echinodermata). Journal of Paleontology.
Wright, D.F., 2015, Fossils, homology, and “Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny”: a reassessment of primary posterior plate homologies in fossil and living crinoids with insight from developmental biology. Paleobiology, 41:570-591.
Ausich, W.I., T.W. Kammer, E.C. Rhenberg, and D.F. Wright, 2015, Early phylogeny of crinoids within the Pelmatozoan clade. Palaeontology, 58, 937-952.
Wright, D.F. and W.I. Ausich, 2015, From the stem to the crown: phylogeny and diversification of pan-cladid crinoids. Pp. 199-202 in Progress in Echinoderm
vii
Palaeobiology. S. Zamora and I. Rábono (eds.), Cuadernos del museo Geominero, 19, Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, 292 pp.
Ausich, W.I., T.W. Kammer, D.F. Wright, S.R. Cole, M.E. Peter, and E.C. Rhenberg, 2015, Toward a phylogenetic classification of the Crinoidea (Echinodermata). Pp. 29-32 in Progress in Echinoderm Palaeobiology. S. Zamora and I. Rábono (eds.), Cuadernos del museo Geominero, 19, Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, 292 pp.
Wright, D.F. and A.L. Stigall, 2014, Species-level phylogenetic revision of the Late Ordovician orthid brachiopod genus Glyptorthis. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, DOI 10.1080/14772019.2013.839584
Wright, D.F. and A.L. Stigall, 2013, Phylogenetic revision of the Late Ordovician orthid brachiopod genera Plaesiomys and Hebertella from North America. Journal of Paleontology, 87: 1107-1128.
Wright, D.F. and A.L. Stigall, 2013, Geological drivers of Late Ordovician faunal change in Laurentia: investigating links between tectonics, speciation, and biotic invasions. PLoS ONE, 8(7): e68353. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068353
Wright, D.F. and P.A. Selden, 2011, A Trigonotarbid arachnid from the Pennsylvanian of Kansas. Journal of Paleontology, 85: 871-876.
Fields of Study
Major Field: Geological Sciences
Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... ii
Dedication ...... iii
Acknowledgements ...... iv
Vita ...... vii
List of Tables ...... xi
List of Figures ...... xii
Chapter 1: Overview ...... 1
Chapter 2: Fossil, homology, and “Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny”: a reassessment of primary posterior plate homologies among fossil and living crinoids with insights from developmental biology ...... 13
Chapter 3: Bayesian estimation of fossil phylogenies and the evolution of early to middle
Paleozoic crinoids (Echinodermata) ...... 77
Chapter 4: Phylogenetic taxonomy and classification of the Crinoidea (Echinodermata)
...... 150
ix
Chapter 5: Ecologic innovation and phenotypic constraint in the evolutionary radiation of
Paleozoic crinoids ...... 231
Chapter 6: Crinoids from the Bobcaygeon and Verulam Formations (Upper Ordovician) near Brechin, Ontario: new taxa and emended descriptions ...... 289
References ...... 343
Appendix A: Character list for phylogenetic analysis in Chapter 5 ...... 399
x
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Species included in phylogenetic analysis...... 139
Table 4.1 Species name, least inclusive clade, and first appearance interval for each taxon depicted in Figure 4.1...... 222
Table 4.2 Revised rank-based classification of the Crinoidea...... 224
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The logical structure and interdependence of research domains within phylogenetic paleobiology...... 11
Figure 2.1 Summary of previously proposed phylogenetic relationships of pan-cladid crinoids...... 69
Figure 2.2 Generalized morphology of cladid crinoids...... 71
Figure 2.3 An antinomy of alternative primary homology schemes for a single posterior plate in the Mississippian genus Phanocrinus...... 73
Figure 2.4 Pentacrinoid stage development and morphogenesis of the extant comatulid crinoid Comactinia meridionalis...... 75
Figure 3.1 Illustration of the fossilized birth-death process...... 142
Figure 3.2 Parsimony-based estimate of rate variation among characters...... 144
Figure 3.3 Testing statistical associations between the amount of morphologic evolution inferred from an undated analysis and divergence times estimated under a relaxed morphologic-clock model...... 146
Figure 3.4 Maximum Clade Credibility tree of early to middle Paleozoic crinoids...... 148
Figure 4.1 Taxa representing major crinoid clades...... 227
Figure 4.2 Cladogram depicting phylogenetic relationships among species used to define major clades within the Crinoidea...... 229
Figure 5.1 Macroevolutionary models of trait evolution...... 269
Figure 5.2 Rates of phenotypic evolution in eucladid crinoids during the Paleozoic ...... 271
Figure 5.3 Disparity and diversity profiles for Paleozoic eucladid crinoids...... 273
xii
Figure 5.4 Time-varying diversification and sampling parameters estimated from phylogenetic analysis and stratigraphic ranges of genera...... 275
Figure 5.5 Rates of morphologic evolution among eucladid subclades ...... 277
Figure 5.6 Identification of adaptive zones based on principal coordinate analysis of the morphologic character matrix ...... 279
Figure 5.7 Phylomorphospace and adaptive zone occupation throughout the history of Paleozoic radiation...... 281
Figure 5.8 The relationship between taxonomic and morphologic diversification in Paleozoic eucladids...... 283
Figure 5.9 Additional plots depicting the radiation of eucladids in diversity-disparity space...... 285
Figure 5.10 Maximum Clade Credibility tree from Bayesian analysis of 81 Paleozoic eucladid crinoid species...... 287
Figure 6.1 Locality map of the Lake Simcoe region in Ontario ...... 315
Figure 6.2 Stratigraphy of the Simcoe Group highlighting the position of the Bobcaygeon and Verulam Formations...... 317
Figure 6.3 Abundance distribution of specimens represented in the Brechin collections ...... 319
Figure 6.4 Konieckicrinus brechinensis n. gen. n. sp., specimen 5097.2 ...... 321
Figure 6.5 Konieckicrinus brechinensis n. gen. n. sp., specimen 5097.3 ...... 323
Figure 6.6 Konieckicrinus josephi n. gen. n. sp., specimen 5097.7JK ...... 325
Figure 6.7 Konieckicrinus josephi n. gen. n. sp., specimen 5097.1JK ...... 327
Figure 6.8 Konieckicrinus josephi n. gen. n. sp., specimen 5097.6 ...... 329
Figure 6.9 Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857 ...... 331
Figure 6.10 Carabocrinus vancortlandti Billings, 1859 ...... 333
Figure 6.11 Grenprisia springeri Moore 1962 ...... 335
xiii
Figure 6.12 Illemocrinus amphiatus Eckert, 1987 ...... 337
Figure 6.13 Cupulocrinus humilis (Billings, 1857) ...... 339
Figure 6.14 Cupulocrinus jewetti (Billings, 1859) ...... 341
xiv
Chapter 1: Overview
Introduction
A fundamental aspect of biodiversity is its tremendous propensity to vary across
multiple scales and hierarchical levels. Components of biodiversity, such as morphologic
diversity and taxonomic richness, vary widely among clades and through geologic time.
Understanding the processes that regulate large-scale variation in Earth’s biodiversity
requires integrating quantitative models of phenotypic evolution with macroevolutionary
theories describing how large-scale Earth-system processes and global change events
modify the structure and evolution of adaptive landscapes over geologic time.
For at least 3.5 billion years, episodes of diversification and extinction have
shaped and pruned the vast evolutionary tree of life. Despite the spectacular array of
Earth’s present day biodiversity, the estimated ~8.7 million species inhabiting the planet today represent a small sample of all species that have ever existed (Foote and Miller,
2007; Mora et al., 2011).
Fortunately, the fossil record provides a wealth of data regarding the morphology, spatial distribution, and temporal duration of lineages over long timescales. Although also incompletely sampled, the fossil record details the geologic history of Earth’s biodiversity and offers the only direct, empirical record of evolution’s trajectory, long- term trends, intermediate forms, and former glory of extinct clades. Thus, the fossil
1
record provides a natural, model system for studying macroevolution—commonly
defined as either (1) evolutionary changes taking place over time scales inaccessible to
direct observation or experimentation on extant species, (2) evolutionary patterns among
species rather than within an ancestor-descendant lineage, or (3) any process(es) resulting
in large-scale evolutionary change (Simpson, 1944; Eldredge and Gould, 1972; Stanley,
1979; Erwin, 2000; Hunt and Rabosky, 2014).
Phylogenetic Paleobiology
Phylogenetic paleobiology is an emerging interdisciplinary research program at
the nexus of paleontology, systematics, and evolutionary biology. Specifically,
phylogenetic paleobiology integrates the deep-time data, techniques, and geologic perspectives of paleontology with phylogeny-based statistical and computational approaches in macroevolutionary biology. Phylogenetic paleobiology is primarily concerned with the development and application of mathematical methods and evolutionary models to (1) estimate evolutionary relationships among lineages of extinct taxa, and (2) to study the tempo and mode of trait evolution among lineages using phylogenetic trees of fossil species (Hunt and Slater, 2016). A schematic of this research program and how it unites the major features of this dissertation is depicted in Figure 1.1.
Crinoidea (Echinodermata)
Echinoderms are a diverse and ecologically significant phylum of marine animals
with an exceptional fossil record and are represented by more than 7,000 species in
2
today’s oceans. The Echinodermata includes familiar animals such as starfish, sea urchins, and sand dollars. The apparent diversity of echinoderms alive today masks their more prodigious geologic history. For example, the subclass Crinoidea (feather stars and
sea lilies) comprises an evolutionary lineage of reef-dwelling to deep water echinoderms represented by ~600 species today, yet more than 8,000 fossil species have been
described spanning some 480 million years of evolutionary history.
Fossil crinoids are an ideal taxon for studying trait evolution and diversification
because they are a long ranging, well sampled taxonomic group (Foote and Raup, 1996)
and preserve aspects of their feeding ecology and functional morphology as fossils (Lane,
1971; Ausich, 1980; Brower, 2007, Baumiller, 2008). Further, crinoids are highly
amenable for morphology-based phylogenetic analyses because they are comprised of
many discrete, homologous morphological characters (Moore and Laudon, 1943; Ausich,
1988, 1998; Foote, 1999). The combination of a well-sampled geologic history and the
propensity to construct phylogenetic hypotheses makes fossil crinoids a well-suited taxon
for integrating phylogenetic comparative methods with paleontological approaches to
studying macroevolution (Slater and Harmon, 2013).
Summary of Contents
Using the framework of phylogenetic paleobiology and the fossil record of
crinoid echinoderms, this dissertation is comprised of six semi-independent research
projects concerning the phylogeny, classification, phenotypic evolution, and evolutionary
radiation of Paleozoic crinoids, with emphasis placed on the Cladida.
3
Each chapter represents a distinct contribution proportional to a stand alone
scientific paper (Figure 1.1). Indeed, the content in chapters 2-4 has either already been
published (Wright, 2015) or accepted for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals
(Wright, in press; Wright et al., in press). Chapters 5-6 represent early versions of manuscripts to be submitted for publication following the defense of this dissertation.
The details of these projects are described more fully below.
Chapter 2: Fossils, homology, and “Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny”: a reassessment of primary posterior plate homologies among fossil and living crinoids with insights from developmental biology
Homology is a fundamental concept in biology because it provides an evolutionary explanation for why similar features are shared by different organisms—
they both inherited that feature from a common ancestor. However, the distributions of
“primary” homologies among species reflect a prior belief in what constitutes comparable
organismal elements and are the principal determinants of the outcome of phylogenetic
analysis. Thus, it is critical that primary homology statements are well justified when
conducting phylogeny-based research. This chapter combines information on fossil
morphology, phylogenetic systematics, and insights from evolutionary developmental
biology to reassess a set of historically contentious calyx plate homologies in non-
camerate crinoids. The content of this chapter was published in Paleobiology (Wright,
2015).
4
Chapter 3: Bayesian estimation of fossil phylogenies and the evolution of early to middle
Paleozoic crinoids (Echinodermata)
The application of computational methods to infer evolutionary relationships among fossil species is becoming increasingly common in paleobiological studies.
However, most methods of phylogenetic inference typically used by paleontologists do not accommodate the idiosyncrasies of fossil data and therefore do not take full advantage of the information provided by the fossil record. However, recent advances in fossil “tip-dating” offer paleontologists a statistical approach to combine morphologic and stratigraphic data with probabilistic models to infer phylogenies of fossil taxa. In this chapter, I describe the basics of Bayesian tip-dating phylogenetics, describe the fossilized birth‒death process model and its utility as a tree prior distribution, and present an empirical application of these techniques inferring the phylogeny of Ordovician through Devonian crinoids. The content of this chapter has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Paleontology (Wright, in press).
Chapter 4: Phylogenetic taxonomy and classification of the Crinoidea (Echinodermata)
Biological classification systems are most useful when they convey phylogenetic relationships and facilitate lucid communication among researchers. In the Linnaean system, species are arrayed into higher taxonomic ranks of increasing inclusivity based on various criteria for delimiting taxa and their ranks. Ideally, a taxon’s rank in the hierarchy provides a coarse statement of evolutionary relationships. In contrast, phylogenetic taxonomy eschews ranks and instead defines taxa based on phylogenetic
5
relationships alone and delineates their taxonomic content based on phylogenetic hypotheses. This chapter builds on a number of recent quantitative phylogenetic analyses and uses the principles of phylogenetic taxonomy to propose a series of stem- and node- based definitions for all major taxa (fossil and extant) traditionally recognized within the
Crinoidea. In addition, a phylogeny-based revision to the traditional rank-based Linnaean
classification is also proposed. The content of this chapter has been accepted for
publication in the Journal of Paleontology (Wright et al., in press).
Chapter 5: Ecologic innovation and phenotypic constraint in the evolutionary radiation
of Paleozoic crinoids
The application of model-based approaches to estimating evolutionary trees and
the development of phylogeny-based statistical methods have greatly expanded
paleobiological research programs investigating the tempo and mode of morphologic
evolution. In this chapter, I test the relationships between phylogeny-based rates of
morphologic evolution, taxonomic diversification, and morphospace occupation in the
~200 million year evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic crinoids. Results indicate
phenotypic diversification is more complex than models commonly assumed in
comparative biology, at least over geologic timescales—highlighting the need for
continued synthesis between fossil and phylogenetic approaches to macroevolution. This
chapter represents an early version of a manuscript currently in preparation for
submission to a peer-reviewed journal.
6
Chapter 6: Crinoids from the Bobcaygeon and Verulam Formations (Upper Ordovician) near Brechin, Ontario: new taxa and emended descriptions
The Upper Ordovician (lower Katian) Bobcaygeon and Verulam Formations near
Brechin, Ontario are comprised of a highly diverse, well-preserved crinoid fana. This fauna provides an exceptional window into a taxonomically diverse Late Ordovician crinoid community from the interval between the Sandbian diversity peak and the end-
Ordovician extinction. A survey of newly collected material from the Bobcaygeon and
Verulam Formations reveals a large number of exceptionally preserved crinoid specimens with arms, stems, and attachment structures intact. Focusing on taxa placed within the
Cladida, this chapter contains taxonomic descriptions for a new genus, comprised of two new species, and additional descriptions for other species within the Brechin fauna. This chapter is a nascent version of a manuscript focusing on cladid species preserved in the
Brechin fauna and is part of a much broader work conducting a taxonomic re-evaluation of fossil crinoids from the Ordovician of Ontario.
7
References
Ausich. W.I., 1980, A model for niche differentiation in Lower Mississippian crinoid
communities: Journal of Paleontology, v. 54, p. 273-288.
Ausich. W.I., 1988, Evolutionary convergence and parallelism in crinoid calyx design:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 62. P. 906-916.
Ausich. W.I., 1998, Phylogeny of Arenig to Caradoc crinoids (Phylum Echinodermata)
and suprageneric classification of the Crinoidea: The University of Kansas
Paleontological Contributions, v. 9, p. 1-36.
Baumiller, T.K., 2008, Crinoid ecological morphology: Annual Review of Earth and
Planetary Sciences, v. 36, p. 221-249.
Brower, J.C., 2007,The application of filtration theory to food gathering in Ordovician
crinoids: Journal of Paleontology, v. 81, p. 1284-1300.
Eldredge, N., and Gould, S.J., 1972, Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic
gradualism, p. 82-115. In T. J. M. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. Freeman,
Cooper, San Francisco.
Erwin, D.H., 2000, Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution:
Evolution and Development, v. 2, p. 78-84.
Foote, M. 1999, Morphological diversity in the evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic and
post-Paleozoic crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 25, p. 1-115.
Foote, M., and Miller, A.I., 2007, Principles of Paleontology, 3rd edition: W.H. Freeman,
San Francisco, 354 p.
8
Foote, M., and Raup, D.M., 1996, Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa:
Paleobiology, v. 22:121-140.
Hunt, G., and Rabosky, D.L., 2014, Phenotypic evolution in fossil species: pattern and
process: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 42, p. 421-441.
Hunt, G., and Slater, G., 2016, Integrating paleontological and phylogenetic approaches
to macroevolution: Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, v. 47.
P. 189–213.
Lane, N.G., 1971, Crinoids and reefs: Proceedings of the North American Paleontological
Convention, v. 2, p.1430-1443.
Moore, R.C., and Laudon, L.R., 1943, Evolution and Classification of Paleozoic crinoids:
Geological Society of America Special Paper, v. 46, p. 1-154.
Mora, C., Tittensor. D.P., Adl, S., Simpson A.G.B., Worm, B., 2011, How Many Species
Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? PLoS Biol 9(8): e1001127. doi:
10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127
Simpson, G.G., 1944, Tempo and Mode in Evolution: Columbia University Press, 237 p.
Slater, G.J., and Harmon, L.J., 2013, Unifying fossils and phylogenies for comparative
analyses of diversification and trait evolution: Methods in Ecology and Evolution,
v. 4, p. 699-702.
Stanley, S.M., 1979, Macroevolution: pattern and process: Freeman, San Francisco, 332
p.
Wright, D.F., 2015, Fossils, homology, and “Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny”: a
reassessment of primary posterior plate homologies among fossil and living
9
crinoids with insights from developmental biology: Paleobiology, v. 41, p. 570‒
591.
Wright, D.F., in press, Bayesian estimation of fossil phylogenies and the evolution of
early to middle Paleozoic crinoids (Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology.
Wright, D.F., Ausich, W.I., Cole, S.R., Peter, M.E., Rhenburg, E.C., in press,
Phylogenetic taxonomy and classification of the Crinoidea: Journal of
Paleontology.
10
Figure 1.1 The logical structure and interdependence of research domains within phylogenetic paleobiology. Major research areas emphasized in each chapter are depicted along with their cascading effects, where each arrow tip points toward an area that depends (in part) on information gathered within the domain located at the arrow tail.
Areas of emphasis within phylogenetic paleobiology are in bold, italicized text.
11
Fig. 1.1
12
Chapter 2: Fossils, homology, and “Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny”: a reassessment of
primary posterior plate homologies among fossil and living crinoids with insights from
developmental biology
Abstract.—Paleobiologists must propose a priori hypotheses of homology when
conducting a phylogenetic analysis of extinct taxa. The distributions of such “primary”
homologies among species are fundamental to phylogeny reconstruction because they
reflect a prior belief in what constitutes comparable organismal elements and are the
principal determinants of the outcome of phylogenetic analysis. Problems arise when
fossil morphology presents seemingly equivocal hypotheses of homology, herein referred
to as antinomies. In groups where homology recognition has been elusive, such as
echinoderms, these problems are commonly accompanied by the presence (and
persistence) of poor descriptive terminology in taxonomic literature that confounds an
understanding of characters and stymy phylogenetic research. This paper combines fossil
morphology, phylogenetic systematics, and insights from evolutionary developmental
biology to outline a research program in Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny. A “paleo”-
ontogenetic approach to character analysis provides a logical basis for homology recognition and discerning patterns of character evolution in a phylogenetic context. To illustrate the utility of the paleo-ontogenetic approach, I present a reassessment of
13
historically contentious plate homologies for “pan-cladid” crinoids (Cladida, Flexibilia,
Articulata). Developmental patterns in living crinoids were combined with the fossil record of pan-cladid morphologies to investigate primary posterior plate homologies.
Results suggest the sequence of morphologic transitions unfolding during the ontogeny of
extant crinoids are developmental relics of their Paleozoic precursors. Developmental
genetic modules controlling posterior plate development in pan-cladid crinoids have
likely experienced considerable constraint for over 250 million years and limited
morphologic diversity in the complexity of calyx characters. Future phylogenetic
analyses of pan-cladids are recommended to consider the presence of a single plate in the
posterior region homologous with the radianal, rather than the anal X, as is commonly
assumed.
Introduction
“…to avoid the taint of theory in morphology is impossible, however much it may be
wished. The whole science is riddled with theory. Not a specimen can be described
without the use of a terminology coloured by theory, implying the acceptance of some one
or other theory of homologies.” –William Bateson (1894: p. vii)
Paleobiologists study the rich, geologic history of fossilized morphologies to
examine patterns and processes in macroevolution. The ~520 million year history of
14
metazoan evolution revealed by fossils provides an empirical record of mass extinctions,
morphologic innovations, and adaptive radiations otherwise unknowable from
observations on extant species alone (Sepkoski 1981; Alroy 2010). Such studies are of
interest to ecologists, developmental, and evolutionary biologists because they offer
insight into evolution on timescales inaccessible to direct observation or experimentation.
Integration between paleobiology and other biologic disciplines frequently leads to a
better understanding of evolutionary patterns and processes at multiple hierarchical
levels. For example, combining the stratigraphic record of fossil occurrences with recent
discoveries in evolutionary developmental biology (EDB, or “evo-devo”) has facilitated unprecedented insights into the causal mechanisms of morphologic diversity, body plan evolution, and developmental links between micro- and macroevolution (Shubin and
Marshall 2000; Raff 2007; Wagner 2007; Carroll 2008; Erwin and Davidson 2009).
Many studies combining fossils with other biologic disciplines, such as developmental biology, utilize phylogenetic information at coarse taxonomic levels (Raff
2007). Unfortunately for paleobiologists, transformations between ancestor-descendent morphologies at low taxonomic levels are not always unambiguously arrayed in stratigraphic succession. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete and can obscure patterns of first and last appearances (Smith 2001). In addition to paleontologic incompleteness, mosaic and/or heterogeneous rates of phenotypic evolution frequently confound accurate interpretations of morphologic disparity and taxonomic evolution
(Erwin 2007). In an attempt to account for these difficulties, paleobiologists are increasingly using quantitative computational methods (e.g., maximum parsimony,
15
Bayesian inference) to construct phylogenetic hypotheses for fossil taxa rather than
relying on “expert” taxonomic opinion and/or the stratigraphic distribution of first and
last appearances. Reconstructed phylogenies of fossil taxa are becoming commonplace
for analyzing a broad swath of macroevolutionary topics ranging from extinction
dynamics (Purvis 2004; Harnik et al. 2014) to phenotypic trait evolution (Wagner 1995;
Bapst 2014) and paleobiogeography (Lieberman 2001; Wright and Stigall 2014).
Importantly, phylogenetic information is necessary for fossil occurrences to be
meaningfully applied with other kinds of evolutionary data such as in EDB (Raff 2007).
The use of model phylogenies as a template for paleobiological studies is not
without concern (Wagner 2000a). Setting aside methodological issues involving
optimality criteria (Wright and Hillis 2014), the accuracy of recovered phylogenies are
fundamentally limited by the information content of their underlying morphologic data
and a researcher’s ability to codify fossil morphology into a set of a priori hypotheses of
homology. Therefore, choosing a robust set of primary homologies (sensu de Pinna 1991)
is critical to reconstructing model phylogenies. Given their importance for accurately
reconstructing phylogenetic trees, how should paleobiologists propose homologous
features in extinct lineages? What criteria form a logical basis for choosing among
hypotheses of homologies when alternatives are possible? How are these hypotheses tested to discover features that reflect “true” evolutionary homologies?
This paper presents a combined phylogenetic and “paleo”-ontogenetic approach
to these questions (cf. Mooi et al. 2005). A research program in Phylogenetic Paleo-
ontogeny combines fossils, phylogenetic systematics, and evolutionary developmental
16
biology to provide a logical basis for discovering homologies and discerning patterns of
character evolution among fossil species. As an example, I present a character analysis of posterior plate homologies among fossil and living crinoids (Echinodermata, Crinoidea) to illustrate how combining fossil morphology with developmental data can help resolve homology schemes and provide an ontogenetic basis for generating phylogenetic hypotheses of fossil taxa. The reassessment presented herein not only provides a step towards building a phylogeny that links extant crinoids with their Paleozoic ancestors but may also be useful guide for other researchers seeking a logical rationale when proposing homology statements for fossil taxa. As a prelude to my discussion on crinoid plate homologies, I first present an overview of theoretical and epistemological aspects of homology and discuss their relationship with phylogenetic systematics. Throughout, I integrate concepts from EDB when discussing homology and phylogenetic systematics to develop a general framework for a research program in Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny.
Homology: conceptual basis and operational definition
The concept of homology is fundamental to evolution and permeates all aspects of
biology (Laubichler 2000). Despite its significance, homology is a seemingly elusive concept because different disciplines use the word in different ways (Brigandt 2003). For example, an evolutionary (paleo)biologist might propose an historical definition of homology involving a comparison of morphologic structures among species to reveal a
17
sequence of adaptive transformations. In contrast, an evolutionary developmental biologist may instead prefer a mechanistic definition where homologous features are described in terms of their underlying developmental genetics. Contrasts between perspectives are potentially problematic for relating fossilized morphologies to mechanistic definitions of homology because the overwhelming majority of species known from fossils are entirely extinct and therefore unavailable for study in an evo-devo
laboratory. More worrisome for paleobiologists is the knowledge that paralogous genes
may produce superficially “homologous” morphological structures, and truly
homologous loci may control non-homologous structures (e.g., Bolker and Raff 1996).
In light of evolution, differing perspectives of homology (i.e., historical and
mechanistic) among disciplines are united by a common theoretical basis: homology is
best viewed as a concept reflecting the continuity of information in the context of
phylogenetic history (van Valen 1982). Ever since Darwin (1859) the concept of
homology has been used intuitively among biologists to convey the “same” features in
different species arising from shared common ancestry. Recent insights from EDB
suggests that the “same-ness” underlying complex morphologic structures result from the
inheritance of gene regulatory networks (GRNs) with co-adapted transcription factors
rather than the cumulative expression of individual “homologous” genes (Wagner 2007;
Erwin and Davidson 2009). Indeed, most morphologic evolution likely results from
changes in cis-regulatory elements rather changes in gene number or protein function
(Carroll 2008). GRNs can be dissected into quasi-independent “developmental modules”
responsible for the occurrence, reoccurrence, and modification of a morphological
18
character across a phylogeny (Wagner 1996; Arnone and Davidson 1997). Thus, a unified
definition of homology combines developmental causality with phylogenetic continuity
(Hall 2003).
The phylogenetic distribution of homologous information is hierarchically nested
across multiple levels of biological organization—from genes to species (Hall 2003). The
notion of “deep” homology requires a decoupling between phylogenetic, phenotypic, and
genetic levels of homology. Deep homology arises when identical sets of genes are
shared among phylogenetically disparate taxa despite great morphological differences
between them (Shubin and Marshall 2000). For example, the last decade of research in
EDB has discovered striking similarities among the gene families of analogous
morphological structures (Carroll 2008; Shubin and Marshall 2000). When considering
morphological traits, instances of convergence or parallelism are not homologous at the
phenotypic level even if such patterns are causally linked to “deep” homologies at the
genetic level (Hall 2003). Because this paper is about formulating homology statements
for realized fossil morphology, it is useful herein for the concept of “homology” to refer
to the subset of phylogenetic information expressed in the phenotypes of ancestor-
descendent lineages while recognizing that deeper genetic homologs (or paralogs) play an
important role in morphologic evolution.
The theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics unites ontological and
epistemological aspects of homology by providing the concept with a set of procedures that lead to its discovery in empirical data (Wiley and Lieberman 2011). In fact, the advent of phylogenetic systematics has led many biologists to equate homology with
19
synapomorphy (Hennig 1966; Wiley 1975; Patterson 1982; Wheeler 2012). Any trait
present in an ancestor and all of its descendants is by definition a homologous trait via
continuity of descent (note that symplesiomorphies are synapomophies when considered
at a more inclusive level). Thus, “a homology is always a synapomorphy and a
synapomorphy is always a homology” (Wheeler 2012: p. 117).
Phylogenetic systematics and the discovery of homologous characters
Knowledge of “true” evolutionary homology requires knowledge of absolute truth, which is of course nonexistent in science. Phylogenetic empiricism requires observational, a priori hypotheses of homology (Wiley and Lieberman 2011). Hypotheses of homology are repeatedly tested and ultimately either corroborated or falsified on the basis of available evidence (Hennig 1966). The “discovery” of homologous characters among fossil lineages is therefore anchored by empirical observations and best approached when multiple lines of independent evidence are considered.
Ernst Haeckel claimed to have employed the “threefold parallelisms” of Louis
Agassiz to infer phylogeny: ontogenetic sequences, comparative anatomy, and the phyletic transformation of fossils in geologic succession (see Gould 1973). Although theoretical and computational aspects of modern phylogenetic methods bear little resemblance to Haeckel’s, the components of Agassiz’s parallelisms still comprise the basic character data used to propose homologous characters and build phylogenies. The
20
essence of Agassiz’s parallelisms can be combined with the ontological basis of
homology provided by EDB and the epistemological principles of phylogenetic
systematics to forge an interdisciplinary research program: Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny.
Characters and phylogenetic hypothesis testing—Homology statements in
phylogenetics originate as character data. Any observable, heritable organismal feature is
potentially a phylogenetically informative character (e.g., morphologic structures, a
sequence of nucleotides, developmental traits, or behavioral data). Because morphologic
characters are produced by developmental modules in the GRN, the phenotype of
organisms can similarly be atomized into components of semi-autonomous “morphologic modules”; where each module has a degree of independence despite some integration with other modules (Wagner 2006). The quasi-independent nature of characters underscores a common (if not ubiquitous) assumption in mathematical phylogenetic methods: a character must operationally be expressed as an independent random variable
X with N mutually exclusive transformational states (X0, X1, X2…XN) in quantitative
phylogenetic analysis (Sereno 1997).
De Pinna (1991) recognized two distinct levels of homology statements that arise
in phylogenetic systematics: primary and secondary homologies. A primary homology
refers to a proposition that two characters are homologous (de Pinna 1991). Primary
homologies are generated prior to phylogenetic analysis and therefore represent a priori
hypotheses. In practice, primary homology statements for characters X0, X1, X2…XN are
given by the distributions of transformational states among the columns of a character by
taxon matrix. Primary homology statements can be falsified as instances of homoplasy or
21
corroborated by others characters via phylogenetic analysis. Patterson’s (1982)
suggestion to examine the degree of congruence among characters forms the most
decisive test of homology for morphologic characters (de Pinna 1991). Under Hennig’s
(1966) auxiliary principle, primary homologies represent inchoate hypotheses of common
descent. If a primary homology passes the Patterson’s congruence test, it matures into a
secondary homology (de Pinna 1991).
Quantitative phylogenetic methods form a natural test of Patterson’s (1982)
notion of character congruence because they utilize the covariance structure among
characters simultaneously when searching for optimal tree topologies. Once an analysis
results in a tree (or set of trees), characters can be mapped onto the tree(s) to delimit
monophyletic groups and discover instances of homoplasy. Congruence obtains when
multiple primary homology statements corroborate one another and diagnose the same
monophyletic group, viz. primary homologies become secondary homologies. However, if a primary homology statement requires independent derivations in different clades, then that primary homology has been falsified by the available evidence and cannot be considered a homology at a hierarchical level inclusive of those clades. Note that homoplasies at one phylogenetic level may be considered synapomorphies when
considered at a less inclusive level. Observations of character congruence in real datasets
reflect a mixture of homology and homoplasy at different phylogenetic scales (Wagner
2000b).
Of course, erroneous assumptions about characters are likely to affect the
accuracy of phylogenetic inferences (Wagner 2000b). Although the proposition of
22 primary homology statements requires a priori assumptions about what constitutes the quality of same-ness between characters, it does not require a priori assumptions regarding inferences of actual patterns of character evolution. (Those require an independent set of assumptions involving computational and/or optimality criteria in phylogenetic analysis, not discussed here.) The accuracy of all evolutionary inferences in phylogenetic systematics is constrained by what is herein termed the phylogenetic uncertainty principle. The phylogenetic uncertainty principle simply states that the certainty of any output tree topology recovered using phylogenetic methods is fundamentally limited by the inherent uncertainty in the original choice of primary homologies. Primary homologies may be falsified during phylogenetic inference
(rendering phylogenetics an empirically rigorous and testable science), but the underlying character data must be assumed a priori to comprise comparable elements in the first place. The phylogenetic uncertainty principle is an epistemological constraint imposed by the nature of historical data in biology and cannot be circumvented by mathematical or other methodological techniques, although such procedures may provide useful heuristics. The identification of comparable elements in molecular phylogenetics has benefited greatly from the advent of alignment techniques for DNA sequences, but no analogous framework currently exists for morphology. Moreover, uncertainty in phylogeny reconstruction cannot be solved by continuously adding more characters, regardless of quality, to overwhelm the noise to signal ratio and increase clade resolution, particularly in morphologic systematics (Wagner 2000b; Bapst 2012). Ideally, all “errors” discovered among primary homology statements through phylogenetic analysis arise for
23 biologic reasons and not from poor interpretations of morphology. Therefore, it is critical when making phylogenetic inferences that all a priori assumptions of primary homology have a logical, biologic basis supported by empirical observations via character analysis.
Character analysis: Remane’s criteria and developmental biology—Hypotheses of primary homology arise from character analysis, not phylogenetic analysis. These hypotheses are critical to accurately reconstruct evolutionary relationships because the outcome of a phylogenetic analysis is determined by the matrix analyzed (Bryant 1989).
Given their fundamental importance, assessments of primary homology should be critically evaluated and only proposed after careful analysis and argumentation. Remane
(1952) outlined three principles useful for recognizing potentially homologous features among organisms: (1) similarity in position, (2) similarity in structure, and (3) the existence of transitional forms.
Criterion (1) corresponds with Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire’s (1830) “principe des connexions” and refers to similarities in the topological position of a character and its relation to other characters; whereas criterion (2) refers to an “intrinsic” similarity where two or more features match in their structural details and complexity without reference to topological position (Wiley and Lieberman 2001). For a given character, an unambiguous match between criteria (1) and (2) would support the proposition of a primary homology statement. Unfortunately, it is not always clear what constitutes a “match”. Multiple hypotheses of primary homologies can arise when evolution has transformed one structure into another and/or a character has shifted in topological position. What if the evidence supporting alternative interpretations is equivocal? Criterion (3) offers a
24 solution to this dilemma by incorporating information on the transitional forms of fossils and development.
Observations of the embryologic stages of development combined with the geologic succession of fossilized morphologies have long helped guide the recognition of homologous characters (von Baer 1828; Darwin 1859; Hall 2002). Homologous characters need not be similar in structure or position if it can be shown they have common genealogical origins via the existence of transitional forms exhibited in developmental patterns or the fossil record. Moreover, the existence of intermediate forms in fossils and embryos provides a temporal axis to character transformations.
Gilbert and Bolker (2001) pointed out that a significant feature of embryological development is not necessarily the appearance (or disappearance) of individual transient morphologic structures, it is the temporal sequence of changes the embryo undergoes and their underlying genetic mechanisms. In other words, these temporal sequences
(paleontologic or developmental) themselves can provide a logical basis for proposing primary homologies.
Conflictions between homology, terminology, and phylogenetics: examples from the Echinodermata
“I salute the echinoderms as a noble group especially designed to puzzle the zoologist.”
–Libbie H. Hyman (1955: p. vi)
25
A major source of character data in systematic studies come from taxonomic descriptions of morphology. This is particularly true in studies utilizing paleontological data because most fossils are limited to providing only morphologic information about extinct organisms. However, taxonomic descriptions and the terminology employed therein do not express unbiased observations of nature. All descriptive observations, including those in this paper, are colored by theories and expectations (Eldredge and
Gould 1972). Notably, detailed taxonomic descriptions are often entrenched in theoretical considerations of homology and rich in predictions of character evolution.
When theories of homology and character evolution change, the terminology used to name and/or identify a character may or may not. Obviously, problems arise in downstream comparative analyses if the descriptive terminology used to describe a morphologic feature does not reflect its evolutionary history. The existence (and persistence) of a poor descriptive nomenclature in taxonomic literature obfuscates hypotheses of primary homology when building a character matrix and results in specious topologies when such a matrix is analyzed using phylogenetic methods. The examples below taken from echinoderm studies demonstrate that hypotheses of primary homology should not be taken from taxonomic literature uncritically.
Echinoderm homologies and phylogeny—Echinoderms are a phylum of marine organisms represented by more than 7,000 living species (Brusca and Brusca 2003) distributed among five classes: Crinoidea (sea lilies and feather stars), Ophiuroidea
(brittle stars), Asteroidea (sea stars), Echinoidea (urchins and sand dollars), and
26
Holothuroidea (sea cucumbers). The apparent diversity of extant echinoderms masks
their more prodigious geologic history. The half-billion-year echinoderm fossil record is spectacularly complete and reveals approximately 30 clades distributed among 21 taxonomic classes spanning the entire Phanerozoic Eon (Sprinkle and Kier 1987).
Moreover, the calcitic endoskeletons of fossil and living echinoderms showcase a bewildering array of disparate morphologies making them ideal for studying large-scale evolutionary patterns (Foote 1992; Sprinkle and Guensburg 1997).
Yet the phylum’s extreme morphologic disparity also presents difficulties for determining homologies between and among clades and obstructs accurate phylogenetic inferences (Paul and Smith 1984; Sumrall 1997). Research assembling a “complete” echinoderm phylogeny has been stymied for decades in part due to the lack of a unified set of morphologic terms representing homologous skeletal structures and much effort has recently been applied to the problem (Mooi et al. 1994; Mooi and David 1997; Mooi et al. 2005; David et al. 2000; Sumrall 2008; 2010; Sumrall and Waters 2012; Zamora et al. 2012; Kammer et al. 2013). For example, Sumrall and Waters (2012) examined thecal plate elements among four clades of fossil blastozoan (i.e., stalked, non-crinoid) echinoderms and discovered that homologous plates in closely related clades often had different names and that some nonhomologous plates had the same name. Egregious terminology is not limited to fossil echinoderms. Mooi and David (1997) pointed out that the five living classes also have major terminological problems that obfuscate common features across clades, such as the name applied to the various expansions of the oral ring
(Hyman 1955). Thus, using the traditional names of plates to construct hypotheses of
27
primary homology would produce spurious topologies in phylogenetic analysis because
these plates are only “homologous” in the sense that they share the same name but do not
share evolutionary origins. Clearly, character analyses and revisions of morphologic terms must accompany efforts to reconstruct echinoderm phylogeny.
Crinoids as a fractal analog of a phylum—Difficulties determining skeletal
homologies are pervasive within as well as between echinoderm clades. Within the
Crinoidea, the 600 or so living species constitute a fractal analog of homology problems
outlined above characteristic of the phylum and offer the opportunity for a smaller-scale case-study detailing a Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogenetic approach to discovering homology
(Simms 1993; Ausich 1996). Below, I resolve contention surrounding primary homologies for posterior plates of “pan-cladid” crinoids by combining data from fossil morphology and developmental patterns in living crinoids. Although conducting a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis on pan-cladid crinoids is beyond the scope of this paper, the analysis presented here provides a logical basis for choosing hypotheses of primary homologies for posterior plate characters in future phylogenetic analyses.
Moreover, it is hoped that the argumentation used herein will serve as general framework for others seeking a logical basis for proposing primary homologies to test phylogenetic hypotheses.
28
Terminological antinomies and transitional homologies: parallels
between crinoid ontogeny and fossilized evolutionary history
“The mystery of this controversy is curiously full of misunderstandings and
misrepresentations.” –Bather (1891: p. 480)
Natural history of the pan-cladid Crinoidea—The Pan-Cladida are a long-lived clade of crinoids spanning the Ordovician Period (~ 485.4 Ma to 443.4 Ma) (Cohen et al.
2013) to the present and include all extant species of Crinoidea as well as fossil forms.
Together, the pan-cladids are the most diverse clade of crinoids and comprise three of the
fived named subclasses: Cladida, Flexibilia, and Articulata (Ausich et al. in press; Wright
and Ausich in press). The subclass Cladida is paraphyletic and gave rise to both the
Flexibilia and Articulata (Springer 1920; Simms and Sevastopulo 1993). Thus, the name
“Pan-Cladida” used herein refers to the common ancestor of all species included within
the subclass Cladida and all of its descendants, regardless of taxonomic rank in the
Linnaean hierarchy (Wright and Ausich in press). The flexible crinoids split from the
cladids during the Late Ordovician, diversified, and went extinct at the end of the
Paleozoic Era. The Articulata, of which all living crinoid species are grouped, originated
from cladid ancestors either during the Late Paleozoic or earliest post-Paleozoic (Simms
and Sevastopulo 1993; Webster and Jell 1999) (Fig. 2.1). Recent phylogenies of living
crinoids indicate a monophyletic Crinoidea, but the monophyly of Articulata has been
questioned and awaits further analysis (Rouse et al. 2013; Roux et al. 2013). Because the
29 greatest diversity of pan-cladid crinoids are known only as fossils, tracing the ancestry of living crinoids and discovering their phylogenetic affinities with extinct fossil lineages requires a detailed understanding of crinoid comparative morphology to generate hypotheses of homology.
The skeletal morphology of a crinoid is highly complex and consists of several morphologic modules: the size and shape of the calyx, number and arrangement of posterior plates, arm morphology and branching pattern, and stem (Fig. 2.2). The combinatorial nature of module configurations has given rise to a staggering diversity of pan-cladid morphologies and nearly 1,000 named genera. In Paleozoic cladids, the pentaradial symmetry of the calyx is interrupted by one to three plates located in the posterior CD interray of the cup. These additional, so-called “anal” (sensu Ubaghs 1978) plates, in the posterior region are referred as the radianal, anal X, and right tube plate
(listed from the aboral to oral direction) (Fig. 2.2 B-C). Fossil forms display temporal variation in the number, shape, and positional relations of posterior plates (Moore et al.
1978; Webster and Maples 2006). In extant crinoids, a posterior plate is present in juvenile stages but absent in adults (Clark 1915; Amemiya et al. 2014). Because posterior plating patterns are an important module of morphologic differentiation, they have been extensively used as taxonomically significant characters for delimiting crinoid species and higher taxa (Moore et al., 1978; Webster and Maples 2006). Thus, previous attempts at testing phylogenetic hypotheses and evolutionary patterns among pan-cladids included posterior plate characters despite substantial uncertainty underlying their primary
30
homology statements (Brower 1995; Ausich 1998; Gahn and Kammer 2002; Kammer
2008).
Posterior plates: temporal trends and contentious homologies—Patterns of
posterior plate evolution in fossil pan-cladids have been characterized as exhibiting a
“progressive change toward increased simplicity” (Moore and Laudon 1943: p. 34). The
oldest known pan-cladids have multi-plated posterior interrays (Sprinkle and Wahlman
1994; Guensburg and Sprinkle 2009) and many lineages subsequently exhibit a general
trend to reduce the number of posterior plates in the cup throughout the Paleozoic (Moore
and Teichert 1978). Temporal changes in the number of posterior plates broadly
correspond with concomitant shifts in ecologic abundance and taxonomic diversity
(Webster and Maples 2006). Complex, multi-plated morphologies were the most diverse during the Ordovician and subsequently disappear from the fossil record; whereas crinoids with three posterior plates were most dominant throughout the Silurian to
Pennsylvanian (Webster and Maples 2006). Crinoids with a single posterior plate rapidly diversified during the Pennsylvanian and increased in frequency to become the most common morphology during the Permian (Webster and Maples 2006). Older taxonomic literature capture these so-called progressive changes by describing a plate arrangement as having either a “primitive” or “advanced” condition, where primitive refers to stratigraphically older multi-plated morphologies and advanced refers to younger two or single-plated forms (Moore et al. 1978).
Homology schemes for posterior plates among fossil lineages and between fossil and living crinoids have been debated, somewhat inimically, for more than a century (P.
31
H. Carpenter 1882; Wachsmuth and Springer 1879; Bather 1980; 1891; 1918; Clark
1915; Mortensen 1920; Springer 1920; Ubaghs 1953; Moore 1962; Phillip 1964; Moore and Teichert 1978; Webster and Maples 2006). The overwhelming majority of named fossil genera have three posterior plates in the cup, including putative Paleozoic ancestors of living crinoids and fossil flexibles (Webster and Jell 1999; Webster and Maples 2006).
Using Remane’s (1) criterion described above, proposing primary plate homologies for crinoids with three posterior plates is straightforward. The radianal is the most proximal posterior plate to (and always in contact with) the C radial, typically occupying a position beneath or to the left of the C radial. The anal X is interradial in position and may be in lateral contact with the radianal, C radial, BC and CD basals, or the CD basal, and occupies a position above and/or to the left of the radianal (Ubaghs 1978). The right-tube plate rests either above the radianal or both the radianal and anal X and typically provides support for other plates in the anal sac (Fig. 2.2). Where only two plates are present in the cup, Remane’s (1) criterion can once again be used to propose primary homologies for the two remaining more proximal plates: the radianal and anal X (Moore and Teichert
1978). However, any further reduction in the number of posterior plates renders
Remane’s (1) criterion inapplicable because the single posterior plate does not occupy a position more similar to either the radianal or anal X where two or more posterior plates are present. In other words, one of the posterior plates migrated from its ancestral position and the other is absent.
An antinomy can be characterized as a kind of paradox that describes two equally compelling but mutually incompatible explanations and is a useful term to describe the
32 contention that arises when only a single posterior plate is in the cup. Choosing whether a single plate in the posterior interradius is the radianal or anal X presents an antinomy of alternative homology schemes (Fig. 2.3). If there is only one posterior plate in a fossil pan-cladid, is it the radianal or anal X? Is this fossilized single posterior plate homologous with the single plate present in the juvenile stages of extant crinoids? If so, which posterior plate is it? Unfortunately, Remane’s (2) criterion cannot help because the shape of a single posterior plate is constrained to accommodate changes in the size and shape of the calyx and therefore does not retain the shape of either the radianal or anal X when alone in the cup.
The problem is further confounded by a history of problematic terminology favoring plate topologies over plate homologies. Remarkably, a perusal of the taxonomic literature of fossil crinoids reveals the presence of a single posterior plate in a fossil cladid is frequently termed an anal X in taxonomic descriptions and figured specimens even when an author considered the plate homologous to the ancestral radianal or the evidence equivocal (cf. Moore and Laudon 1943; Ubaghs 1953; 1978; Moore 1962;
Philip 1964). Kirk’s (1944: p. 234) description of the single posterior plate in the
Mississippian genus Cymbiocrinus epitomizes this dubious practice: “it is doubtful if this plate is homologous to [the] anal X, but we may so denominate it for convenience”.
These misnomers obfuscate any notion of evolutionary continuity among characters. It is not surprising there has been much confusion given that different sections of the crinoid
Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology (Moore and Teichert 1978) disagree with one another with respect to posterior plate homologies and terms for fossil and living pan-
33
cladids (cf. Breimer 1978, Brower 1978, Moore et al. 1978; Strimple 1978; and Ubaghs
1978). Thus, crinoid paleobiologists should not take Treatise descriptions of posterior
plate characters at face value when proposing primary homologies to make phylogenetic
inferences.
Potentially more confusing for a phylogeneticist is the terminological scheme
proposed by Webster and Maples (2006). In an attempt to rectify terminological
misnomers, Webster and Maples (2006) proposed to abolish all implications of homology
from morphologic nomenclature by renaming the posterior plates the primanal,
secundanal, and tertanal. Under this terminology, the primanal is always the most
proximal plate in the cup, regardless of whether it is the radianal or anal X. Thus,
Webster and Maples (2006) “solved” the epistemological dilemma of proposing
homology statements by avoiding them altogether. This so-called solution is problematic for two reasons. First, because the terminology of Webster and Maples (2006) is based purely on topology without reference to any ontological theory of homology, it is useless for proposing primary homologies to test phylogenetic hypotheses. Second, the proposed terms are already in use to describe an unrelated, non-homologous set of plates in a phylogenetically distant clade of crinoids, the subclass Camerata (Moore and Teichert
1978; Ausich 1998). For these reasons, Webster and Maples’ (2006) terminology should not be followed. Instead, we should confront the problem directly by seeking a logical basis for choosing between alternative primary homology schemes. This approach has the advantage of combining posterior plate characters with other modular complexes of crinoid morphology in a phylogenetic analysis. Thus, characters can be tested against one
34 another when inferring phylogenetic relationships and any parallel instances of plate reduction (or addition) can be determined empirically.
In the next two sections, I apply Remane’s (3) criterion to examine potential transitional forms in two independent sources of data: the ontogeny of extant crinoids and paleontologic studies on individual lineages. The recognition of intermediate morphologies present in developmental patterns of extant representatives and/or high- resolution paleontologic sequences may provide paleo-ontogenetic evidence supporting one set of primary homologies over another and dissolve antinomies arising from examining comparative morphology alone.
Developmental patterns in living crinoids—Numerous observations of embryologic stages in extant crinoids have been described, particularly for the stalkless comatulid crinoids (Thomson, 1865; Carpenter 1866; Clark 1915; Springer 1920;
Mortensen 1920; Mladenov and Chia 1983; Lahaye and Jangoux 1987; Shibata et al.
2008). Developmental patterns in living species of stalked crinoids were largely unknown until recently (Nakano et al. 2003; Amemiya et al. 2014). Because stalked crinoids and comatulids share many similarities with respect to the skeletal development of the calyx and posterior plates, the distinction between the two adult forms is not pertinent for the purposes of this paper.
Kammer (2008) lucidly described common themes of crinoid development, from which I base the following conspectus. Crinoid ontogeny consists of five successive life stages: the embryo, doliolaria, cystidean, pentacrinoid, and (in comatulids) the comatulid stage (Mladenov and Chia 1983; Lahaye and Jangoux 1987). The doliolaria is an
35
endotrophic, free-swimming larva that emerges from the embryonic membrane. Once the
doliolaria settles on a suitable substrate, it metamorphoses into the stalked cystidean
stage. The skeleton of a cystidean stage consists of paired, interradially-oriented basals and primary peristomial cover plates (i.e., oral plates, see Kammer et al. 2013), a terminal stem plate, and a few columnals. Infrabasal plates, common in fossil pan-cladids, do not usually develop in living articulates but are known to occur in some species (Rasmussen
1978). Next, more skeletal plates are added including an “anal” plate, radials, and numerous additional plates relating to the construction of the arms and pinnules initiating the exotrophic pentacrinoid stage. Comatulids become adults when they excise the stem; whereas stalked crinoids grow into larger “adult” pentacrinoids. Although variation in the details of crinoid ontogeny exists, all crinoid species exhibit the general growth sequence and patterns of skeletal plate addition outlined above.
This single posterior plate was originally called an “anal” plate in living species because it was first discovered in the pentacrinoid stage of comatulids to directly overlie the BC basal between the radials, and therefore assumed on the basis of topological position to be homologous with the anal X in fossil crinoids (Thomson 1865; Carpenter
1866; Bather 1890). However, development is not a static process and characters cannot be accurately traced by giving special consideration to a single ontogenetic stage.
Skeletal plates within the calyx grow at different rates and change in size and shape over the course of ontogeny (Lahaye and Jangoux 1987). In addition, the topological arrangement of plates may vary in different growth stages. These changes must be accounted for when tracing parallels between development and evolution. Comparisons
36 between a single ontogenetic stage and adult morphology can lead to specious proposals of primary homology because the developmental origin of a character may not correspond to its position during a later time in ontogeny. Instead, the entire sequence of changes must be considered when connecting the developmental origin of a morphologic character with its ontogenetic history and ultimate fate in the adult.
The developmental origin, migration, and eventual resorption of the single posterior plate in juvenile crinoids have been well characterized throughout the succession of ontogenetic stages by Clark (1915), Springer (1920), and Lahaye and
Jangoux (1987) (Fig. 2.4). Detailed observations by these authors demonstrate that the development of the posterior “anal” plate originates in a radial position (with respect to the basals and primary peristomial cover plates) prior to the radials during the cystidean stage, and occurs within the same radius as the C radial. When the radial plates begin to grow, the larger posterior plate occupies a position beneath and to the left of the C radial, maintaining a close affinity with the developing gut tract (Springer 1920). As the radials grow larger, the posterior plate occupies a position on the right-hand side of the CD interray and is accommodated within a concavity in the C radial plate. Eventually the radials push the posterior plate into an inter-radial position (i.e., the CD interray) where it supports a lappet that protects the developing anal cone (Lahaye and Jangoux 1987). The posterior plate subsequently migrates out of the cup and is resorbed once the anal cone has formed. In summary, the posterior plate originates in a radial position, maintains lateral continuity with the C radial, and later moves into the CD interray and out of the cup. In fossil pan-cladids with multiple posterior plates, it is the radianal that has
37
affinities with the C radial and maintains lateral contact with it; whereas the anal X is an
interradial plate (Ubaghs 1978). Thus, the evidence from crinoid ontogeny indicates that
the single, prominent posterior plate found in living crinoids is homologous with the
radianal in fossil pan-cladids, not the anal X.
If the single posterior plate in the juvenile stages of living species is the radianal,
is there any ontogenetic evidence for the existence of an anal X? Recall that the anal X is
an interradial plate within the CD interray. Interradial plates are known to occur in
several species of living comatulids and appear late in development during the
pentacrinoid stage (Clark 1915; Breimer 1978). They either occur in all five interrays
with the same degree of development or they are absent entirely (Breimer 1978). The
early-mid pentacrinoid stage of Comactinia meridionalis displays posterior plating
strikingly similar to the arrangement in many fossil cladid and flexible species, with the
radianal side by side with the additional posterior plate (Springer 1920, plate B, fig. 5a).
Later, the interradials are resorbed along with the radianal leading to their absence in the
adult phenotype (Springer 1920; Breimer 1978). If the posterior interradial is homologous
with the anal X in fossil crinoids, than the right tube plate (and any other posterior plates)
in fossil pan-cladids may have developed from additional posterior interray plates. In this scenario, the interradial plates outside the CD interray either did not develop or were resorbed prior to adulthood, as they are unknown in fossil species. Alternatively, the
posterior interradial plate may not be homologous with the anal X. The insertion of
interradial plates may instead be a novel feature present among a subset of living
comatulids. Interradial plates are presently unknown in juvenile stalked crinoids, but this
38
may simply reflect the paucity of developmental studies on stalked crinoids (Amemiya et
al. 2014).
These observations have significant implications for ascertaining evidence-based primary homology statements if one is willing to assume geology’s useful aphorism regarding the present as the key to the past: the morphologic transitions unfolding during crinoid ontogeny are developmental relics of their Paleozoic precursors. The migration pathway of the radianal during crinoid development (viz, originating radially in the C ray followed by movement to the posterior interradius and out of the cup) parallels temporal trends in the paleontologic succession of posterior plate morphologies (Fig. 2.4).
Therefore, a uniformitarian perspective supports the hypothesis that the radianal plate, not the anal X, is homologous with the single posterior plate in Paleozoic pan-cladids.
Thus, the single posterior plate in the cup of a fossil pan-cladid should be coded as a primary homolog of the radianal plate occurring in crinoids with multi-plated posterior interrays. The implications of this hypothesis are not conditional on the monophyly of the
Articulata because the pageant of ancestral morphologies echoed in crinoid development empirically demonstrates that the single posterior plate in at least one lineage is equivalent to the radianal, not the anal X. Given the similarities in posterior plate development among extant crinoids, a polyphyletic Articulata would only strengthen the argument above because it would suggest that the same pattern occurred independently among multiple Paleozoic ancestors.
Phyletic evolution in Paleozoic pan-cladids: a test of relative frequencies—The argumentation above concerning posterior plate homologies rests upon the assumption
39
that patterns of character change exhibited by extant crinoids can be extended to apply to
all pan-cladid lineages known only as fossils. When conducting a phylogenetic analysis
incorporating extinct pan-cladid lineages, is such an extrapolation from living
representatives justified? Large-scale temporal trends in evolution need not be invariant
among lineages and do not necessarily correspond to phylogenetic trends. Individual
clades may exhibit idiosyncratic trends to reduce (and/or subsequently add) posterior
plates iteratively over time. Nevertheless, character coding decisions must be made if one
seeks to conduct a phylogenetic analysis. Moreover, the question is not whether or not
extant crinoids are closely related to Paleozoic pan-cladids. All evidence indicates they
are closely related and share an overlapping distribution of taxonomically significant
traits (Moore and Teichert 1978; Roux et al. 2013). In the absence of any additional
information, basing primary homologies on ontogenetic sequence data present in living
representatives is justified because empirical science must proceed in the direction of
available evidence. However, one is faced with a seemingly impossible problem of
assessing how often such a hypothesis is objectively accurate.
Null hypotheses in phylogenetics are constructed by making a priori assumptions
of homology among comparable characters and using Hennig’s (1966) auxiliary
principle. What if a mistake is made in determining what constitutes a “comparable
character” (or character state) in the first place? In other words, if the presence of a single
posterior plate is determined to be equivalent to a radianal in pan-cladids during character analysis (H0 = a single posterior plates is homologous with the radianal), how often has a researcher committed a type 2 error? Although such mistakes may, in principle, be
40
unknowable; it is humbling to consider that a type 2 error during character analysis may
result in type 1 errors during phylogenetic analysis and obstruct the recognition of “true”
(i.e., empirical) evolutionary homologies and patterns of character evolution.
Central tendencies in historical science must be determined by examining relative
frequencies (Gould 1989). Although single or isolated occurrences of a phenomenon may
be interesting and/or otherwise worthy of study, they do not provide insight into building
general expectations of a theory. Luckily, the pan-cladid fossil record supplies several
key examples relevant to assessing the relative frequency in which the fossil record supports or refutes available evidence from ontogeny. If examples of morphologic transitions from the fossil record predominantly corroborate the ontogeny-based solution to the posterior plate antinomy, then one can be more confident in the results of a phylogenetic analysis assuming those primary homologies to reconstruct evolutionary relationships and patterns of character evolution.
Although the fossil record of crinoid genera is well-sampled (Foote and Raup
1996), many pan-cladid species are based on only one or a few specimens (Webster and
Maples 2006). All macroevolutionary studies must consider the species-level, even when
using higher taxa as proxies, because species are the fundamental units that preserve
phenotypic change among populations (Hendricks et al. 2014). Unfortunately, there is a
dearth of pan-cladid species-level phylogenies available (Kammer and Ausich 2007;
Gahn and Kammer 2012), and none contain a set of species relevant to the problem
addressed here. Moreover, conducting such a species-level analysis itself may require
addressing the antinomies this paper is attempting to resolve: is the single posterior plate
41
homologous with the radianal or anal X? A comparison of fossilized ontogenetic
sequences among pan-cladids might be helpful, but there are currently no known fossils preserving the larval and early developmental stages of posterior plates. At this point, an interesting light may be thrown on the problem by examining variations in posterior plate
conditions among species with transitional morphologies. The collection of a large
number of specimens allows one to examine a distribution of transitional morphologies
and make comparisons combining all three of Remane’s (1952) criteria.
Webster and Maples (2006) noted numerous instances where intraspecific
variations in posterior plate conditions occur when a large number of specimens were
collected. These examples are particularly informative because they come from
paleontologically well-sampled stratigraphic sections representing short time intervals
(Webster and Maples 2006). Thus, it is likely they represent paleontologic sampling taking place over short enough time scales to sample transitional morphologies. Any bed- scale time averaging and/or taphonomic discrepancies among first and last appearances between stratigraphic sections do not affect the inferences obtained herein because it is the overall distribution of sampled morphologies, not their sampled paleontologic sequence, that are used to make comparisons and examine intermediate forms.
For example, Wanner (1916) recognized the presence of a single, large interradial posterior plate in his original description of the Permian pan-cladid Hydreionocrinus variabilis (= Cadocrinus variabilis), but called this plate the radianal rather than anal X because in some specimens the position of the plate was lying at an angle to the CD basal and in a more proximal position with the C radial. Wanner (1916) noted that among the
42
197 specimens in his collection, a subset possessed proximal tips of one to two small
plates above the radial summit, which he termed the anal X and right tube plate. Thus,
Wanner (1916) concluded that the large posterior plate must actually be a large radianal
that migrated to an interradial position, supporting the anal X and right tube plate above.
Webster and Maples (2006) suggested that if Wanner had a smaller sample size typical of
fossil pan-cladid species, he would likely have committed a misnomer by calling it an
anal X. Given the inconsistent treatment in the Treatise and the standard portrayal of
posterior plates in crinoid plate diagrams (Moore and Teichert 1978), it is probable that
any crinoid worker since the 1800s would have nearly committed the same misnomer.
Similarly, Wright (1920; 1926; 1927) examined posterior plate conditions in a
large number of Upper Paleozoic specimens of Eupachycrinus calyx (n = 1,000),
Zeacrinus? konincki (n = 342), Ulocrinus globosus (n = 480), and Hydreionocrinus sp.
(n = 130) (= Phanocrinus calyx, Parazeacrinites konicki, and Ureocrinus globosus
respectively). Wright (1926, p. 149) noted that “extreme” variations in posterior plates
are apparent in these species when samples become sufficiently large. With such a large
sample size displaying a semi-continuous distribution of intermediate posterior plate conditions, Wright (1920; 1926; 1927) applied the logic of Remane’s criteria to the distribution of transitional morphologies. In all cases, the radianal can be seen to have increased in size and subsequently moved into an interradial position, pushing the other posterior plates out of the cup (e.g., Wright 1926, figs. 1-59). Intermediate morphologies
display small remnants of an anal X and right tube plate above the interradially
positioned radianal plate. Thus, the paleontologic evidence indicates that the posterior
43
plate most proximal to the C ray is the last to migrate from the cup in a phyletic
sequence. Another example supporting the conclusions of Wanner (1916) and Wright
(1926) was discovered by Webster and Lane (1967) for Arroyocrinus popenoei (n = 83).
The examples above should not be interpreted as suggesting that all (or most) species of pan-cladids exhibit variation in posterior plate position and arrangement when large samples are collected. Webster and Lane (1967) also examined Moapacrinus rotundus (n = 137) and Erisocrinus longwelli (n = 59) and found no variation in the posterior plating in either species, therefore supporting the conclusion that the above examples represent special cases where an exceptionally abundant number of specimens in an evolving lineage were sampled over a short temporal duration. Further work is needed to address whether any of the observed posterior plate variations corresponded with other characters and/or were related to speciation.
Webster and Maples (2006) compiled a reference list for the number and arrangement of posterior plates for the type species of 378 pan-cladid genera from which relative frequency of the radianal as the single posterior plate may be inferred. Their dataset includes 152 genera with three posterior plates and therefore can be unambiguously homologized between species using procedures outlined earlier in this paper. Of these, 96% have the radianal “moderately or mostly underlying the right side” of the anal X (Webster and Maples 2006: p. 200). This condition was also found to be the most common arrangement for pan-cladids with two plates in the posterior interray
(Webster and Maples 2006). These paleontological observations support the hypothesis that the single posterior plate in fossil pan-cladids is predominantly the radianal, not the
44
anal X. Therefore, the relative frequency of morphologic transitions recovered from the
fossil record overwhelmingly (≥ 96%) agrees with and corroborates the ontogenetic evidence provided by extant crinoids. This discovery is significant because it overturns more than 120 years of the status quo in crinoid paleontology.
Of course, it is possible that a small number of lineages with no living
representatives lost the radianal plate yet retained the anal X. Both Kammer and Ausich
(1996) and Webster and Maples (2006) suggested that this may have happened among
species of the Mississippian genus Barycrinus. Some species of Barycrinus possess small radianal plates below and to the right of the much larger anal X, where others have only a single, large visible plate interpreted as an anal X. However, as noted by Gahn and
Kammer (2002), it is possible that the anal X has overgrown the radianal in these species and is lamentably invisible on the calyx exterior. Although this condition is presently unknown in Barycrinus, it is known to occur among other Late Paleozoic pan-cladids.
For example, the Pennsylvanian pan-cladid Perimestocrinus calyculus (= Vertigocrinus calyculus) described by Moore and Plummer (1940) has only two plates visible on the exterior surface of the calyx. However, three posterior plates are visible when examined from inside of the cup. When viewed from the inside of the calyx, these plates are readily interpreted as the radianal, anal X, and right tube plate occupying an otherwise ordinary arrangement (Moore and Plummer 1940). Without examining the calyx interior, one may have inferred from topology that the radianal was absent and/or incorrectly coded the exterior plates in a character matrix. Additional taxa with cryptic plates within the calyx interior include species placed in the Pennsylvanian crinoid genera Arkacrinus,
45
Paradelocrinus, Plaxocrinus, Vertigocrinus, and the Mississippian to Permian genus
Erisocrinus (Strimple, 1978; Webster and Maples 2006). Based on these considerations, further collection, preparation, and careful inspection of aberrant fossil specimens is necessary to better understand morphologies that fall outside of general expectations (see
Rozhnov and Mirantsev 2014).
Crinoid ontogeny and phylogeny: implications for evolutionary studies
“Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny: it creates it” –Walter Garstang (1921: p. 82)
The existence of parallels between ontogeny and phylogeny is one of the most pervasive and influential concepts in evolutionary biology and relate directly to the discovery of homologous characters (Gould 1977). Evolutionary developmental biology
(EDB) has recently refurbished von Baer’s law to study parallels between evolution and development (Abzhanov 2013). Von Baer’s law states that more generalized characters appear earlier in ontogeny than specialized characters, with specialized characters developing from generalized characters (Gould 1977). For example, ontogenetic sequences for species within a clade may share generalized developmental features, but subclades may share additional more specialized features that reflect more recent evolutionary changes not shared with other subclades. Because developmental programs in the gene regulatory network (GRN) have phylogenetic memory, they retain aspects of
46
phylogenetic history and may “recapitulate” sensu von Baer 1828 (non Haeckel 1866) ancestral morphologies in the juvenile forms of descendants (Abzhanov 2013). Parallels between evolution and development predict a significant degree of recapitulation between cladistically significant traits nested at different phylogenetic levels (Abzhanov 2013).
Kammer (2008) suggested that the appearance and position of plates during crinoid development are likely controlled by genetic switches, such as Hox genes, that regulate proximal-distal morphogenesis and other aspects of skeletal development.
Although developmental genetic studies on living crinoids have discovered the expression of Hox genes in the earliest developmental stages of the sea lily Metacrinus rotundus (Hara et al. 2006), it is for the moment an understatement to suggest that much work needs to be done to discover how these genes interact with other aspects of the
GRN (such as cis-regulatory elements) to direct downstream development and morphogenesis in crinoids. Nevertheless, the near uniform predictability in the developmental timing of skeletal elements among extant comatulid and stalked species suggests they are controlled by highly conserved developmental modules.
Such evo-devo perspectives serve to strengthen the paleo-ontogenetic character analysis above. In living crinoids, the radianal appears much earlier in ontogeny than other additional plates in the posterior interray (i.e., as in Comactinia meridionalis) and exhibits the same degree of developmental canalization as other calyx plates (Lahaye and
Jangoux 1987). Parallels between crinoid development and fossilized morphology, as interpreted using von Baer’s refurbished law in EDB, indicate that living crinoids recapitulate the morphologies of Paleozoic ancestors because they inherited a common
47 pathway of development (Abzhanov 2013). Thus, the regulatory machinery in the GRN controlling posterior plate development may not have substantively changed since the
Late Paleozoic. This result corroborates studies by Foote (1995; 1999) examining morphologic disparity in Paleozoic and post-Paleozoic crinoids. Foote (1995) found that pan-cladids steadily increase in disparity throughout the Paleozoic despite considerable volatility in generic richness. However, pan-cladid disparity dropped after the end-
Permian extinction and post-Paleozoic forms do not broadly overlap with their Paleozoic representatives in morphospace (Foote 1999). Differences in both overall disparity and morphospace occupation led Foote (1999) to conclude that genetic and/or developmental constraints may have been responsible for substantive differences between Paleozoic and post-Paleozoic crinoids. Given that posterior plate characters show considerable variation throughout the Paleozoic and are correlated with other evolutionary changes occurring in the size and shape of the calyx (Moore et al. 1978; Webster and Maples 2006), it is likely that developmental modules within the GRN of the lineage(s) that survived the end-
Permian extinction became rigidly constrained. Such constraints would limit developmental variation in calyx design and decrease the propensity for lineages to expand into unoccupied regions of crinoid morphospace.
The notion of deep homology provides a potential explanation for putative parallel (i.e., homoplasious) trends in posterior plate characters occurring in different lineages of Late Paleozoic cladids (Moore et al. 1978; Webster and Maples 2006). Given the numerous paleontologic species that display a net reduction in the number of posterior plates, it is possible that different lineages lost posterior plates independently
48
through instances of parallel evolution. Parallel morphologic evolution can occur among
distantly related lineages arising from selection acting on variation within shared
developmental toolkits (Hall 2003). Because most Paleozoic pan-cladids have three
posterior plates, the tendency to evolve less complex morphologies via plate reduction is
interpreted as a paedomorphic trend reflecting arrested development or progenesis
(Kammer 2008). Precocious maturation can result from an adaptive response to pressures
for small body size and/or as an r selection strategy for rapid growth rates for taxa
inhabiting unstable environments (Gould 1977). All putative ancestors of extant crinoids
are members of the Late Paleozoic Crinoid Macroevolutionary Fauna (LPCMF) and
broadly overlap in niche space (Kammer and Ausich 1987; Ausich et al. 1994). The
transition to a cladid-dominated LPCMF was concomitant with considerable
environmental changes, such as an increase in the abundance and distribution of
siliciclastic habitats (relative to carbonate platforms) preferred by Late Paleozoic cladids
(Kammer and Ausich 2006). This increase in siliciclastic environments is related to
orogenic activity and an increase in the frequency of sediment disturbance (Walker et al.
2002). Kammer (2008) noted that pan-cladids in unstable environments commonly have
smaller body sizes. Thus, decreased environmental stability in substrate conditions may
have led to an increase in frequency of pan-cladids with rapid growth rates and small
body sizes exhibiting paedomorphic morphologies. Given that Late Paleozoic pan-cladids likely shared many developmental modules at “deep” genetic levels, different species facing similar selection pressures may have independently evolved paedomorphic morphologies as a response to similar environmental changes. Such selection could arise
49
either through adaptive evolution within populations or at the species level if posterior
plate characters are strongly correlated with diversification rates (Rabosky and McCune
2010). Thus, a combination of selective trends and developmental constraints are
hypothesized herein to have produced parallel evolution of paedomorphic morphologies
in different lineages of Late Paleozoic pan-cladids. Further exploration of these observations await the construction of model phylogenies to test the relationship between the evolutionary acquisition and environmental context of paedomorphic morphologies in
Late Paleozoic pan-cladid crinoids.
The discussion above suggests homoplasy may be common for posterior plate characters in pan-cladid crinoids. An a priori belief of homoplasy is not grounds for excluding posterior plate characters from future phylogenetic analyses because not all instances of homoplasy are artifactual results of poor character state interpretations
(Wagner 2000b). Character reversals and instances of parallel evolution are real events in life’s history and must be mapped onto a model phylogeny to gain insight into historical patterns of character evolution. Moreover, numerous other morphologic characters are correlated with changes in posterior plates including the presence of muscular articulations, zyzygial sutures, structure and branching of the arms, and the development of pinnules (Kammer 2008; Webster and Maples 2008). Moreover, if one were to a priori disregard from phylogenetic analysis any character with the propensity for homoplasy, there would be no characters left to study or much point to conduct a quantitative phylogenetic analysis because such a proposal assumes one already knows the “true” phylogeny and is merely cutting out “noise” among characters to generate a
50
more well-resolved and/or well-supported tree. To be clear, I am not advocating that
homoplasious characters are desirable in phylogenetic analysis. I am only advocating that
features revealed to be comparable elements through paleo-ontogenetic character analysis, as described in this paper, constitute ‘real’, empirical data that need to be rigorously tested against other characters in a phylogenetic context. Given the finite set of morphologic characters available and the important role of posterior plate characters in pan-cladid morphology, I suggest researchers employ a limited “prior belief” in the available paleo-ontogenetic evidence and therefore propose that future phylogenetic analyses consider the single posterior plate in fossil pan-cladids as a primary homolog with the radianal in multi-plated taxa.
Phylogenetic Paleo-Ontogeny: a multidisciplinary approach to
discovering homology
Paleobiology, phylogenetic systematics, and EDB play complementary roles in
evolutionary biology because they provide the theoretical basis and basic historical data
for understanding patterns and processes of macroevolution. Phylogenetic Paleo-
ontogeny constitutes a total evidence approach to homology recognition by unifying
these seemingly disparate fields to propose, test, and empirically “discover” homologous
characters in fossil taxa. A case study in homologizing posterior plates among pan-cladid crinoids was presented to illustrate how a research program in Phylogenetic Paleo- ontogeny can provide insight into how developmental and fossil data can be combined to
51
dissolve morphologic antinomies and ameliorate terminological difficulties obstructing
clarity in homology schemes. It is hoped that this paper will serve as a template for other
researchers seeking an ontological basis and epistemological framework for discovering
homologies of fossil and living species.
For example, within the Echinodermata two models of character analysis have been proposed to resolve homologies among classes: Extraxial-Axial theory (EAT)
(Mooi et al. 1994) and Universal Element Homology (UEH) (Sumrall 2010). The EAT model uses embryological and ontogenetic criteria and designates different kinds of skeletal regions in the echinoderm body as homologous based on developmental and growth patterns; whereas the UEH model attempts to identify individual skeletal plates across clades without reference to regional skeletal patterns. Interestingly, EAT and UEH make different predictions regarding the branching order of major clades in echinoderm phylogeny (cf. David et al. 2000; Kammer et al. 2014) and are sometimes contrasted as alternatives in the literature (Zamora and Rahman 2014). Under the umbrella of
Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny, these two competing approaches to echinoderm homology become unified. Data supporting EAT and UEH are not mutually exclusive and likely reflect phylogenetic information nested within different hierarchical levels of body plan organization. Paleo-ontogenetic hypotheses for both skeletal regions and individual elemental homologies can be combined into a set of primary homology statements and tested against one another in a future phylogenetic analysis of fossil and living
Echinodermata using all available evidence: embryology, ontogeny, genes, and morphology.
52
I do not propose that combining paleo-ontogenetic character analysis with
phylogenetic systematics leads to a more “objective” framework for discovering
homology. All propositions of primary homology are necessarily subjective. Indeed,
there is no such thing as an assumption free phylogenetic analysis. In science, theories
explaining the natural world arise from hypotheses that have survived repeated subjection
to a battery of rigorous testing and empirical corroboration. Should we not subject our a
priori assumptions behind such “testing” to even greater scrutiny? Phylogenetic
empiricism is the basis of evolutionary inference in systematic biology (Wiley and
Lieberman 2011). Phylogenetic information is necessarily obscured when a theoretical
concept (such as homology) is empirically approximated (phylogenetic analysis), yet how
else should science proceed towards asymptotically ascertaining “truth” if not by
successive approximation? A research program in Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny may help pave the way towards such a future.
53
References
Abzhanov, A. 2013. von Baer’s law for the ages: lost and found principles of
developmental evolution. Trends in Genetics 29:712-722.
Alroy, J. 2010. Geographical, environmental and intrinsic biotic controls on Phanerozoic
marine diversification. Palaeontology 53:1211-1235.
Amemiya, S. A. Omori, T. Tsurugaya, T. Hibino, M. Yamaguchi, R. Kuraishi, M.
Kiyomoto, and T. Minokawa. 2014. Early stalked stages in ontogeny of the living
isocrinid sea lily Metacrinus rotundus. Acta Zoologica doi: 10.1111/azo.12109.
Arnone, M. I. and D. H. Davidson. 1997. The hardwiring of development: organization
and function of genomic regulatory systems. Development 124:1851-1864.
Ausich, W. I. 1996. Crinoid plate circlet homologies. Journal of Paleontology 70:955-
964.
—1998. Phylogeny of Arenig to Caradoc crinoids (Phylum Echinodermata) and
suprageneric classification of the Crinoidea. University of Kansas Paleontological
Contributions 9:1-36.
Ausich, W. I., T. W. Kammer, and T. K. Baumiller. 1994. Demise of the Middle
Paleozoic Crinoid Fauna: a single extinction event or rapid faunal turnover?
Paleobiology 20:345-361.
Ausich, W. I., T. W. Kammer, D. F. Wright , S. R. Cole, E. Rhenberg, and M. Peter.
2015. Phylogenetic classification of the Crinoidea (Echinodermata). Cuadernos
del Museo Geominero.
54
Bapst, D. W. 2012. When can clades be potentially resolved with morphology? PLoS
One e62312. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062312
—2014. Assessing the effect of time-scaling on phylogeny-based analyses in the fossil
record. Paleobiology 40:331-351.
Bateson, W. 1894. Materials for the study of variation. MacMillan, London.
Bather, F. A. 1890. British fossil crinoids: The classification of the Inadunata Fistulata.
Annals and Magazine of Natural History 5:373-788.
—1891. Some alleged cases of misrepresentation. Annals and Magazine of Natural
History 6:480-489.
—1918. The homologies of the anal plate in Atedon. Annals and Magazine of Natural
History 9:294-302.
Bolker, J. A. and R. A. Raff. 1996. Developmental genetics and traditional homology.
Bioessays 18:489-491.
Breimer, A. 1978. General morphology, recent crinoids. Pp. T9-T58 in R. C. Moore and
Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part T, Echinodermata
2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.
Brigandt, I. 2003. Homology in comparative, molecular, and evolutionary developmental
biology: the radiation of a concept. Journal of Experimental Zoology 299b:9-17.
Brower, J. C. 1978. Camerates. Pp. T244-T263 in R. C. Moore and Teichert, C. (eds.),
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part T, Echinodermata 2. Geological
Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.
55
—1995. Dendrocrinid crinoids from the Ordovician of northern Iowa and southern
Minnesota. Journal of Paleontology 69:939-960.
Brusca, R. C. and G. J. Brusca. 2003. Invertebrates (2nd edition). Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland.
Bryant, H. N. 1989. An evaluation of cladistics and character analyses as hypothetico-
deductive procedures and the consequences for character weighting. Systematic
Biology 38:314-227.
Carpenter, P. H. 1882. On the relations of Hybocrinus, Baerocrinus, and Hybocystites.
Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 38:298-212.
—1884. Report on the Crinoidea—the stalked crinoids. Report on the scientific results of
the H. M. S. Challenger. Zoology 11:1-440.
Carpenter, W. B. 1866. Researches on the structure, physiology and development of
Antedon (Comatula) rosaceus. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London 156:671-756.
Carroll, S. B. 2008. Evo-Devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: a genetic theory
of morphological evolution. Cell 134:25-36.
Clark, A. H. 1915. A monograph of the existing crinoids. Bulletin of the United States
National Museum 32, part 2.
Cohen, K. M., S. C. Finney, P. L. Gibbard, and J. X. Fan. 2013. The ICS International
Chronostratigraphic Chart. Episodes, 36:199-204.
Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection. Murray,
London.
56
David, B. B. Lefebvre, R. Mooi, and R. L. Parsley. 2000. Are homalozoans echinoderms?
An answer from extraxial-axial theory. Paleobiology 26:529-555.
Erwin, D. E. 2007. Disparity: morphological pattern and development. Palaeontology
50:57-73.
Erwin, D. E. and E. H. Davidson 2009. The evolution of hierarchical gene regulatory
networks. Nature Reviews Genetics 10:141-148. de Pinna, M. G. G., 1991. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistics paradigm.
Cladistics 7:387-394.
Eldredge, N. and S. J. Gould. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic
gradualism. Pp. 82-115 in T. J. M. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology.
Freeman, Cooper and Company, San Fransisco.
Foote, M. 1992. Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89:7325-7329.
—1995. Morphological diversification of Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology 21:273-299.
—1999. Morphological diversity in the evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic and post-
Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology 25:1-115.
Foote, M. and D. M. Raup. 1996. Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa.
Paleobiology, 22:121-140.
Gahn, F. J. and T. W. Kammer. 2002. The cladid crinoid Barycrinus from the Burlington
Limestone (early Osagean) and the phylogenetics of Mississippian botryocrinids.
Journal of Paleontology 76:123-133.
57
Garstang, W. 1921. The theory of Recapitulation: a critical re-statement of the biogenic
law. Journal of the Linnaean Society of London 35:81-101.
Gilbert, S. F. and J. A. Bolker. 2001. Homologies of process and modular elements of
embryonic construction Pp. 437-456 in G. P. Wagner (ed.), The Character
Concept in Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, London.
Gould, S. J. 1973. Systematic pluralism and the uses of history. Systematic Zoology
22:322-324.
—1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.
—1989. Wonderful Life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history. Norton, New York.
Guensburg, T. E. and J. Sprinkle. 2009. Solving the mystery of crinoid ancestry: new
fossil evidence of arm origin and development. Journal of Paleontology 83:350-
364.
Haeckel, E. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzüge der
organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles
Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie. Georg Reimer, Berlin.
Hall, B. K. 2002. Palaeontology and evolutionary developmental biology: a science of the
nineteenth and twenty-first centuries. Palaeontology 45:647-669.
—2003. Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as
seen through an analysis of development and evolution. Biology Reviews 78:409-
433.
58
Hara, Y., M. Yamaguchi, K. Akasaka, H. Nakano, M. Nonaka, and S. Amemiya. 2006.
Expression patterns of Hox genes in larvae of the sea lily Metacrinus rotundus.
Development Genes and Evolution 216:797-809.
Harnik, P. G., P. C. Fitzgerald, J. L. Payne, and S. J. Carson 2014. Phylogenetic signal in
extinction selectivity in Devonian terebratulide brachiopods. Paleobiology
40:679-692.
Hendricks, J. R., E. E. Saupe, C. E. Myers, E. J. Hermsen, and W. D. Allmon. 2014. The
generification of the fossil record. Paleobiology 40:511-528.
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Hyman, L. 1955. The Invertebrates, Vol. 5. Phylum Echinodermata. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Kammer, T. W. 2008. Paedomorphosis as an adaptive response in pinnulate cladid
crinoids from the Burlington Limestone (Mississippian, Osagean) of the
Mississippi Valley. Pp. 177-195 in W. I. Ausich and G. D. Webster (eds.),
Echinoderm Paleobiology, University of Indiana Press, Bloomington.
Kammer, T. W. and W. I. Ausich. 1996. Primitive cladid crinoids from Upper Osagean-
Lower Meramecian (Mississippian) rocks of east-central United States. Journal of
Paleontology 70:835-866.
—2006. The “age of crinoids”: a Mississippian biodiversity spike coincident with
widespread carbonate ramps. Palaios 21:238-248.
—2007. New cladid and flexible crinoids from the Mississippian (Tournaisian, Ivorian)
of England and Wales. Palaeontology 50:1039-1050.
59
Kammer, T. W. C. D. Sumrall, S. Zamora, W. I. Ausich, and B. Deline. 2013. Oral region
homologies in Paleozoic crinoids and other plesiomorphic pentaradial
echinoderms. PLoS ONE 8e77989. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077989
Kirk, E. 1944. Cymbiocrinus, a new inaduate crinoid genus from the Upper
Mississippian. American Journal of Science 242:233-245.
Lahaye, M. C. and M. Jangoux. 1987. The skeleton of the stalked stages of the comatulid
crinoid Atedon bifida (Echinodermata). Zoomorphology 107:58-65.
Laubichler, M. D. 2000. Homology in development and the development of the
homology concept. American Zoologist 40:777-788.
Lefebvre, B. G. J. Eble, N. Navarro, and B. David. 2006. Diversification of atypical
Paleozoic echinoderms: a quantitative survey of patterns of stylophoran disparity,
diversity, and geography. Paleobiology 32:483-510.
Lieberman, B. S. 2000. Paleobiogeography: Using Fossils to Study Global Change, Plate
Tectonics, and Evolution. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Mladenov, P. V. and F. S. Chia. 1983. Development, settling behavior, metamorphosis,
and pentacrinoid feeding and growth of the feather star Florometra serratissima.
Marine Biology 73:309-323.
Mooi, R. B., B. David, and D. Marchland. 1994. Echinoderm skeletal homologies:
classical morphology meets modern phylogenetics. Pp. 87-95 in B. David, A.
Guille, J. Féral, and M Roux (eds.), Echinoderms Through Time. A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
60
Mooi, R. B. and B. David. 1997. Skeletal homologies of echinoderms. Pp. 305-335 in J.
A. Waters and C. G. Maples (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms, Paleontological
Society Papers 3.
Mooi, R., B. David, and G. A. Wray. 2005. Arrays in rays: terminal addition in
echinoderms and its correlation with gene expression. Evolution and
Development 7:542-555.
Moore, R. C. 1962. Ray structures of some inadunate crinoids. University of Kansas
Paleontological Contributions 5:1-47.
Moore, R. C. and Laudon, L. R. 1943. Evolution and Classification of Paleozoic crinoids.
Geological Society of America Special Paper, 46:1-154.
Moore, R. C. and F. B. Plummer. 1940. Crinoids from the Upper Carboniferous and
Permian strata in Texas. University of Texas Publication 3945.
Moore, R. C., and Teichert, C. (eds.) 1978. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T,
Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press,
Lawrence, 1027 p.
Moore, R. C., N. G. Lane, and H. L. Strimple. 1978. Order Cladida Moore and Laudon,
1943, Pp. 578-759 in R. C. Moore and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology. Part T, Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and
University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.
Mortensen, T. 1920. Studies in the development of crinoids. Papers from the Department
of Marine Biology, Carnegie Institution of Washing 16.
61
Nakano, H., T. Hibino, T. Oji, Y. Hara, and S. Amemiya. 2003. Larval stages of a living
sea lily (stalked crinoid echinoderm). Nature 421:158-160.
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. Pp. 21-74 in K. A. Joysey
and A. E. Friday (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic
Press, New York.
Paul, C. R. C. and A. B. Smith. 1984. The early radiation and phylogeny of echinoderms.
Biological Reviews 59:443-481.
Philip, G. M. 1964. Australian fossil crinoids. I, Introduction and terminology for the anal
plates of crinoids. Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of New South Wales
88:259-272.
Purvis, A. 2008. Phylogenetic approaches to the study of extinction. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:301-319.
Rabosky, D. L. and A. R. McCune 2010. Reinventing species selection with molecular
phylogenies. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:68-74.
Raff, R. A. 2007. Written in stone: fossils, genes, and evo-devo. Nature Reviews
Genetics 8:911-920.
Rasmussen, H. W. Evolution of articulate crinoids. Pp T302-T316 in R. C. Moore and
Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part T, Echinodermata
2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.
Remane, A. 1952. Die Grundlagen des Naturlichen Systems der Vergleichenden
Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Geest und Portig, Leipzig.
62
Rouse, G. W., L. S. Jermiin, N. G. Wilson, I. Eeckhaut, D. Lanterbecq, T. Oji, C. M.
Young, T. Browning, P. Cisternas, L. E. Helgen, M. Stuckey, and C. G. Messing.
2013. Fixed, free, and fixed: the fickle phylogeny of extant Crinoidea
(Echinodermata) and their Permian–Triassic origin. Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution 66:161-181.
Roux, M. M. Eleaume, L. G. Hemery, and N. Ameziane. 2013. When morphology meets
molecular data in crinoid phylogeny: a challenge. Cahiers de Biologie Marine
54:541-548.
Rozhnov S. V. and G. V. Mirantsev. 2014. Structural aberrations in the cup in cladid
crinoids from the Carboniferous of the Moscow region. Paleontological Journal
48:1243-1257.
Saint-Hilaire, E. G. 1830. Principes de Philosophie Zoologique, discutés en Mars 1830,
au Sein de l’Académie Royale des Sciences. Pichon et Dider, Paris.
Sereno, P. C. 2007. Logical basis for morphological characters in phylogenetics.
Cladistics, 23:565-587.
Sepkoski, J. J., Jr. 1981. A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil
record. Paleobiology 7:36-53.
Shibata, T. F. A. Sato, T. Oji, and K. Akasaka. 2008. Development and growth of the
feather star Oxyamanthus japonicas to sexual maturity. Zoological Science
25:1075-1083.
Shubin, N. H. and C. R. Marshall 2000. Fossils, genes, and the origin of novelty.
Paleobiology 26:324-340. 63
Simms, M. J. 1993. Reinterpretation of thecal plate homology and phylogeny in the Class
Crinoidea. Lethaia 26: 303-312.
Simms, M. J. and G. D. Sevastopulo. 1993. The origin of articulate crinoids.
Palaeontology, 36:91-109.
Smith, A. B. 2001. Large-scale heterogeneity of the fossil record: implications for
Phanerozoic biodiversity studies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
London 356:351-368.
Springer, F. 1920. The Crinoidea Flexibilia. Smithsonian Institution, Publication 2501.
Sprinkle, J. and T. E. Guensburg. 1997. Early radiation of echinoderms. Pp. 205-224 in J.
A. Waters and C. G. Maples (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms, Paleontological
Society Papers 3.
Sprinkle, J. and P. M. Kier. Phylum Echinodermata. 1987. Pp. 550-611 in R. S.
Boardman, A. H. Cheetham, and A. J. Rowell (eds.), Fossil Invertebrates,
Blackwell Scientific, Palo Alto.
Sprinkle, J. and G. P. Wahlman. 1994. New echinoderms from the Early Ordovician of
West Texas. Journal of Paleontology 68:324-338.
Strimple, H. L. 1948. Notes on Phanocrinus from the Fayetteville Formation of
Northeastern Oklahoma. Journal of Paleontology 22:490-493.
—1978. Evolutionary trends among Poteriocrinina. Pp. T298-T301 in R. C. Moore and
Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part T, Echinodermata
2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.
64
Sumrall, C. D. 1997. The role of fossil in the phylogenetic reconstruction of
Echinodermata. Pp. 267-288 in J. A. Waters and C. G. Maples (eds.), Geobiology
of Echinoderms, Paleontological Society Papers 3.
—2008. The origin of Lovén’s Law in glyptocystitoid rhombiferans and its bearing on
the plate homology and the heterochronic evolution of the hemicosmitid
peristomal border. Pp. 228-241 in W. I. Ausich and G. D. Webster (eds.),
Echinoderm Paleobiology, University of Indiana Press, Bloomington.
—2010. A model for elemental homology for the peristome and ambulacra in blastozoan
echinoderms. Pp. 269-276 in Harris, L. G., Böttger, S. A., Walker, C. W., and
Lesser, M. P. (eds.) Echinoderms: Durham. Taylor and Francis Group, London,
UK.
Sumrall, C. D. and J. A. Waters. 2012. Universal elemental homology in glyptocystitoids,
hemicosmitoids, coronoids and blastoids: steps toward echinoderm phylogenetic
reconstruction in derived blastozoa. Journal of Paleontology 86:956-972.
Thomson, W. C. 1865. On the embryogeny of Antedon rosaceus (Lmk) (Comatula
rosacea of Lamark). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
155:513-545.
Ubaghs, G. 1953. Classe des crinoides. In J. Piveteau (ed.). Traité de Paléontologie. 3:
658-773.
—1978. Skeletal morphology of fossil crinoids. T58-T216 in R. C. Moore and C.
Teirchert (eds.), Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part T, Echinodermata 2,
65
Crinoidea, Geological Society of America, Boulder and University of Kansas
Press, Lawrence.
van Valen, L. M. 1982. Homology and causes. Journal of Morphology. 173:305-312.
von Baer, K. E. 1828. Uber Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere: Beobachtung und
Reflektion, Bornträger.
Wagner, G. P. 2006. Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity.
American Zoologist 36:36-43.
—2007. The developmental genetics of homology. Nature Reviews Genetics 8:473-479.
Wagner, P. J. 1995. Testing evolutionary constraint hypotheses with Early Paleozoic
gastropods. Paleobiology 21:248-272.
—2000a. Phylogenetic analyses and the fossil record: tests, inferences, hypotheses, and
models. Paleobiology 26:341-371.
—2000b. Exhaustion of morphologic character states among fossil taxa. Evolution
54:365-386.
Walker, L. J., B. H. Wilkinson, and L. C. Ivany. 2002. Continental drift and Phanerozoic
carbonate accumulation in shallow-shelf and deep-marine settings. The Journal of
Geology 110:75-87.
Wanner, J. 1916. Dei Permischen echinodermen von Timor, I. Teil. Paläeontology von
Timor 11:1-329.
Wheeler, W. C. 2012. Systematics: a course of lectures. John Wiley and Sons. 426 pp.
Wiley, E. O. 1975. Karl R. Popper, systematics and classification: a reply to Walter Bock
and other evolutionary taxonomists. Systematic Zoology 24:233-243.
66
Wiley, E. O. and B. S. Lieberman. 2011. Phylogenetics: theory and practice of
phylogenetic systematics. John Wiley and Sons.
Webster, G. D. and P. A. Jell. 1999. New Permian crinoids from Australia. Memoirs of
the Queensland Museum 33:349-359.
Webster, G. D. and N. G. Lane. 1967. Additional Permian crinoids from southern
Nevada. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions 27:1-32.
Webster, G. D. and C. G. Maples. 2006. Cladid crinoid (Echinodermata) anal conditions:
a terminology problem and proposed solution. Palaeontology. 49: 187-212.
Wright, A. M. and D. M. Hillis 2014. Bayesian analysis using a simple likelihood model
outperforms parsimony for estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological
data. PLoS ONE 9e109210. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109210
Wright, D. F. and W. I. Ausich. 2015. From the stem to the crown: phylogeny and
diversification of pan-cladid crinoids. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero.
Wright, D. F. and A. L. Stigall 2014. Geologic drivers of Late Ordovician faunal change
in Laurentia: investigating links between tectonic, speciation, and biotic
invasions. PLoS ONE 8e68353. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068353
Wright, J. 1920. On Carboniferous crinoids from Fife; with notes on some localities, and
provisional lists of species. Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow
16:363-392.
—1926. Notes on the anal plates of Epachycrinus calyx and Zeacrinus konincki.
Geological Magazine 64:352-373.
67
—1927. Some variations in Ulocrinus and Hydreionocrinus. Geological Magazine
71:241-268.
Zamora, S., I. A. Rahman, and A. B. Smith. 2012. Plated Cambrian bilaterians reveal the
earliest stages of echinoderm evolution. PLoS One e38296.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038296
Zamora, S. and I. A. Rahman. 2014. Deciphering the early evolution of echinoderms with
Cambrian fossils. Palaeontology 57:1105-1119.
68
Figure 2.1 Summary of previously proposed phylogenetic relationships of pan- cladid crinoids. A, Phylogeny and classification from the Treatise of Invertebrate
Paleontology based on Moore and Teichert (1978) and Moore et al. (1978). B, A revised phylogeny and classification based on Simms and Sevastopulo (1993), Ausich (1998). C,
Phylogenetic relationships according to Webster and Jell (1999).
69
Fig. 2.1
70
Figure 2.2 Generalized morphology of cladid crinoids. A, Reconstruction of the
Silurian crinoid Dictenocrinus decadactylus depicting the morphologic features described
in the text. Note that a modern reconstruction would place the crown in a down-current
position with the arms in an outstretched position to form a rheophilic filtration fan
(modified from Bather 1900, fig. 3). B, Plate diagram of Dendrocrinus longidactylus
showing the orientation rays and interrays in pan-cladid crinoids. The crinoidal plane of symmetry is interrupted in the posterior region by the addition of plates in the CD interray (modified from Moore et al. 1978, fig. 395). C, The CD interray of three genera depicting common positions and arrangements of posterior plates (modified from Moore et al. 1978, fig. 394). (A-E ray designations in Carpenter’s [1884] system, radials black, radianal cross ruled, anal X and right tube plate [rt] stippled.)
71
Fig. 2.2
72
Figure 2.3. An antinomy of alternative primary homology schemes for a single posterior plate in the Mississippian genus Phanocrinus. A, Possible homology scheme depicting an evolutionary trend in posterior plate reduction leaving the anal X in the cup.
B, An alternative homology scheme depicting the radianal as the single posterior plate.
(Redrawn from Strimple [1948]. Radials black, radianal cross ruled, anal X and right tube plate [rt] stippled.)
73
Fig. 2.3
74
Figure 2.4 Pentacrinoid stage development and morphogenesis of the extant comatulid crinoid Comactinia meridionalis. A, Early pentacrinoid stage showing the radianal in the C ray with close affinities to the gut tract. B, The radianal is larger than the newly formed C radial and lying obliquely below it. C, Radial plates have increased in size. The radianal has migrated toward the middle of the underlying CD basal while still occupying the inner margin of the C radial plate. D, Radial plates are in in lateral contact except in the CD interray, where the radianal occupies a medial position. E, Radial plates are now in complete lateral contact. The radianal has been lifted up within the cup with the growth of the anal tube. F, The radianal rests on the shoulders of the C and D radial plates and continues its upward migration with the anal tube. The radianal is resorbed shortly after this stage. (Stages redrawn from Springer [1920: plate B]. Radials black, radianal cross ruled, AN—anus, B—basal plate, PPCP—primary peristomial cover plate,
RA—radianal plate).
75
Fig. 2.4
76
Chapter 3: Bayesian estimation of fossil phylogenies and the evolution of early to middle
Paleozoic crinoids (Echinodermata)
Abstract.—Knowledge of phylogenetic relationships among species is fundamental to understanding basic patterns in evolution and underpins nearly all research programs in biology and paleontology. However, most methods of phylogenetic inference typically used by paleontologists do not accommodate the idiosyncrasies of fossil data and therefore do not take full advantage of the information provided by the fossil record. The advent of Bayesian “tip-dating” approaches to phylogeny estimation is especially promising for paleo-systematists because time-stamped comparative data can be combined with probabilistic models tailored to accommodate the study of fossil taxa. Under a Bayesian framework, the recently developed fossilized birth‒death process (FBD) provides a more realistic tree prior model for paleontological data that accounts for macroevolutionary dynamics, preservation, and sampling when inferring phylogenetic trees containing fossils. In addition, FBD tree prior also allows for the possibility of sampling ancestral morphotaxa. Although paleontologists are increasingly embracing probabilistic phylogenetic methods, these recent developments have not previously been applied to the deep-time invertebrate fossil record. Here, I examine phylogenetic relationships among Ordovician through Devonian crinoids using a 77
Bayesian tip-dating approach. Results support several clades recognized in previous
analyses sampling only Ordovician taxa, but also reveal instances where
phylogenetic affinities are more complex and extensive revisions are necessary,
particularly among the Cladida. The name Porocrinoidea is proposed for a well- supported clade of Ordovician ‘cyathocrine’ cladids and hybocrinids. The Eucladida is proposed as a clade name for the sister group of the Flexibilia herein comprised of cladids variously considered ‘cyathocrines’, ‘dendrocrines’, and/or ‘poteriocrines’ by other authors.
Introduction
Modern macroevolutionary research resides at the nexus of paleontology and
phylogenetic comparative biology. The fossil record provides a spectacular temporal
window into the vicissitudes of life’s history and paleontologists have long used its
patterns to investigate large-scale trends in diversification dynamics and morphologic
evolution over timescales inaccessible to experimental manipulation or field-based investigation (Simpson, 1944; Sepkoski, 1981; Hunt et al., 2008; Alroy, 2010). Similarly, biologists armed with molecular phylogenies of extant species and tree-based statistical techniques have increasingly become interested in addressing macroevolutionary questions traditionally studied by paleontologists (e.g., O’Meara et al., 2006; Bokma,
2008; Rabosky, 2009; Rabosky and McCune, 2009; Harmon et al., 2010; Pennell et al.,
2014). Although differences between paleontologic and biologic perspectives remain,
78
attempts to bridge disciplinary gaps between fields have wide-reaching implications for
assembling a more synthetic macroevolutionary theory (Jablonski, 2008; Slater and
Harmon, 2013; Hunt and Slater, 2016).
Instances of integration between fields, such as paleontology and molecular phylogenetics, often provide opportunities for reciprocal illumination. For example, fossils play a major role in dating divergences among extant species. Without external information to constrain absolute ages, branch length estimation is confounded by the fact that both rates of molecular sequence evolution and elapsed time contribute to observed distances among species. Thus, the construction of a time-calibrated molecular
phylogeny requires information on fossil morphologies and their temporal distributions to
provide a numerical timescale for testing alternative models of macroevolutionary
dynamics (Donoghue and Benton, 2007; Ksepka et al., 2015; dos Reis et al., 2015).
Equally illuminating for paleontologists, many probabilistic methods originally
developed by molecular phylogeneticists can be modified and applied to paleontologic
data (Wagner, 2000a; Wagner and Marcot, 2010; Lee and Palci, 2015; but see Spencer
and Wilberg, 2013). For example, Lewis (2001) developed a k-state Markov model for
calculating likelihoods of discrete, morphologic characters based on a generalization of
the Jukes-Cantor model of molecular sequence evolution. Although simplistic, Lewis’
(2001) “Mk” model has recently been demonstrated in a Bayesian context to outperform
other phylogenetic methods under a range of conditions present in real datasets, including
missing character data, high rates of character evolution (and therefore homoplasy), and
rate heterogeneity among characters (Wright and Hillis, 2014; O’Reilly et al., 2016). The
79
recent resurgence of “total-evidence” (Pyron, 2011; Ronquist et al., 2012) approaches in
phylogenetics coincides with a renewed interest among biologists in phenotypic evolution
and the utility of morphologic phylogenetics in an age of “post-molecular systematics”
(Lee and Palci, 2015; Pyron, 2015). This revival of interest in morphologic
phylogenetics is good news for paleontologists because nearly all phylogenies of fossil
species are inferred using only morphologic character data. Indeed, there has been an
increasing number of studies employing probabilistic approaches to estimate phylogenies
with morphologic data, especially in paleontology (e.g., Wagner, 1998, 1999; Snively et
al., 2004; Pollitt et al., 2005; Clarke and Middleton, 2008; Pyron, 2011; Ronquist et al.,
2012; Wright and Stigall, 2013; Lee et al., 2014; Slater, 2013, 2015; Close et al., 2015;
Gorscak and O’Connor, 2016; Bapst et al., 2016).
Particularly promising for systematic paleontology is the advent of tip-dating
approaches for inferring phylogenies containing non-contemporaneous taxa (Pyron,
2011; Ronquist et al., 2012; Gavryushkina et al., 2014). Bayesian “total-evidence” tip-
dating combines molecular sequences, morphologic character data, and temporal
information on fossil distributions to simultaneously estimate the best tree topologies,
branch lengths, and divergence times among extinct and extant lineages (Ronquist et al.,
2012; Lee and Palci, 2015). Tip-dating approaches operate on the simple assumption that
evolution can be modeled as a function of time, with either a strict or relaxed clock-like
model of character change. Although most tip-dating studies combine fossil and living species (e.g., Pyron, 2011; Ronquist et al., 2012; Slater, 2013), tip-dating approaches
equally apply to character matrices containing only morphologic data (Slater, 2015)
80
and/or with only fossil taxa (Lee et al., 2014; Gorscak and O’Connor, 2016; Bapst et al.,
2016). Moreover, mathematical models originally developed for studying the spread of
viruses in epidemiology have found applications in fossil tip-dating (Stadler et al., 2012;
Stadler and Yang, 2013; Gavryushkina et al., 2014). The “fossilized birth‒death” process
(Stadler, 2010; Heath et al., 2014) has recently been applied within a Bayesian context as
a more realistic tree prior distribution that accounts for macroevolutionary and sampling
processes (Gavryushkina et al., 2014).
This paper presents the first application of Bayesian tip-dating methods to a
fossil-only dataset of invertebrate animals. Here, I examine phylogenetic relationships
among early to middle Paleozoic crinoids (Echinodermata). Crinoids are particularly
amenable for the purposes herein because (1) they have a well-sampled fossil record
(Foote and Raup, 1996), (2) their skeletal morphology is highly complex and character-
rich (Ubaghs, 1978; Foote, 1994; Ausich et al., 2015), and (3) testing phylogenetic
hypotheses among crinoid higher taxa requires sampling non-contemporaneous taxa over
long timescales (> 107 years), making them an ideal system for implementing a tip-dating approach (Ronquist et al., 2012). Because the approach taken herein is novel to the invertebrate fossil record, I provide a brief discussion on Bayesian tip-dating and the fossilized birth‒death process tree prior to familiarize the reader with these emerging methods. Although this makes the paper necessarily technical in places, it is hoped those sections will provide a useful resource for other systematic paleontologists interested in probabilistic approaches to fossil phylogenetics.
81
Previous work on crinoid phylogeny
The Crinoidea form the sister group to all other extant echinoderm classes (Asteroidea,
Echinoidea, Holothruoidea, and Ophiuroidea) and have an extensive geologic history spanning the Lower Ordovician (~480 Ma) to the present day. Ever since Bather (1899) published his seminal work A Phylogenetic Classification of the Pelmatozoa, crinoid systematists have sought a robust evolutionary template for understanding the phylogenetic distribution of fossil and living species (Ausich and Kammer, 2001). Other than a few isolated studies conducted at low taxonomic levels (e.g., Kammer, 2001; Gahn and Kammer, 2002), most phylogenetic research using computational methods have focused on inferring relationships within two key time intervals: the Ordovician and the
Recent (Ausich, 1998; Guensburg, 2012; Hemery et al., 2013; Rouse et al., 2013; Ausich et al., 2015; Summers et al., 2014; Cole, in press). These intervals are significant because they bookend the evolutionary history of crinoids into their early diversification during the Ordovician Period and their present day diversity in marine ecosystems. However, these intervals are separated by ~480 million years and phylogenetic research linking post-Ordovician stem taxa with the crown Crinoidea remains a largely unexplored area of research (Simms, 1988; Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993; Webster and Jell, 1999).
Crinoids are traditionally divided into several higher taxa, including the Camerata,
Disparida, Hybocrinida, Cladida, Flexibilia, and the Articulata (Moore and Teichert,
1978). Except for articulate crinoids, these groups first appear in Ordovician rocks.
Despite more than a century of controversy, phylogenetic relationships among
82
Ordovician taxa are reaching a consensus. For example, all recent analyses of Ordovician
crinoids strongly support an early divergence between camerate and non-camerate crinoids (Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015; Cole, in press). Thus, the Camerata is the sister clade to all non-camerate crinoids. Similarly, both Guensburg (2012) and Ausich et al. (2015) recovered a monophyletic Hybocrinida as the sister clade to a subset of cladid taxa. Ordovician analyses also recover a monophyletic Disparida as sister to the clade of cyathocrine cladids and hybocrinids (Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015). However, relationships among taxa placed currently within the Cladida, and their relationships to other higher taxa, have been a long-standing problem in crinoid systematics (McIntosh,
1986, 2001; Sevastopulo and Lane, 1988; Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993; Kammer and
Ausich, 1992, 1996).
In his review of echinoderm phylogeny and classification, Smith (1984) lamented the cladid portion of the crinoid tree was one of the “outstanding areas of ignorance in echinoderm phylogeny” (Smith, 1984, p. 456). Indeed, the Cladida (sensu Moore and
Laudon, 1943) have long been considered a paraphyletic group because some nominal cladids are hypothesized to be more closely related to flexible and/or articulate crinoids than other cladids (Springer, 1920; Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993; Brower, 1995; Ausich,
1998; Wright, 2015). Unfortunately, recent phylogenetic analyses not only confirm that
Ordovician cladids are a paraphyletic assemblage (Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015), but also that the validity of the Cladida and their constituent higher taxa (i.e.,
Dendrocrinida and Cyathocrinida) cannot be fully remedied by simply adopting Simms and Sevastopulo’s (1993) recommendation to place the Flexibilia and Articulata within
83 the Cladida. In addition, because the monophyletic status of a taxon requires a temporal reference frame (conventionally taken as the present day), it is unknown whether some recovered “clades” in Ordovician analyses retain their monophyletic status when younger taxa are considered. For example, Ordovician cyathocrine cladids are typically recovered as a clade (Ausich, 1998; Ausich et al., 2015), but are sometimes nested within a more inclusive clade of cyathocrines and hybocrinids when hybocrinids are sampled in the same analysis. Testing whether or not the other cyathocrine cladids belong to this clade remains an open question and requires sampling younger species. Similarly, Ordovician cladids placed within the Dendrocrinida (sensu Moore and Laudon, 1943) are paraphyletic, but there may nevertheless be latent phylogenetic structure present among subsets of post-Ordovician dendrocrines that could inform taxonomic revisions.
The analyses conducted herein build on and further test recently proposed phylogenetic hypotheses that sample only Ordovician crinoids (Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015).
Thus, this analysis includes a broad sample of early to middle Paleozoic (Ordovician‒
Devonian) non-camerate crinoids and primarily focuses on resolving relationships among the problematic Cladida.
Bayesian phylogenetics and the fossilized birth-death process
Bayesian phylogenetic methods combine a likelihood model of evolution with a set of prior probabilities to generate a posterior probability distribution of phylogenetic trees 84 and their associated parameters. The Bayesian framework used herein is adapted from
Gavryushkina et al. (2015). This model uses time-stamped morphologic character data to simultaneously estimate a posterior distribution of phylogenetic trees, divergences times, and other macroevolutionary and sampling parameters.
Let be a phylogeny (i.e., tree topology with branch lengths in units of time), be a vector 𝛹𝛹of parameters describing morphologic evolution, and be the tree prior (andδ its associated hyper parameters). Using Bayes theorem, the posteriorπ probability distribution is,
[ | , ] [ | ] [ | ] [ ] [ ] [ , , | , ] = , [ , ] 𝑓𝑓 𝑋𝑋 𝛹𝛹 δ 𝑓𝑓 𝑑𝑑 𝛹𝛹 𝑓𝑓 𝛹𝛹 π 𝑓𝑓 π 𝑓𝑓 δ 𝑓𝑓 𝛹𝛹 π δ 𝑋𝑋 𝑑𝑑 𝑓𝑓 𝑋𝑋 𝑑𝑑 (1)
where X is a character by taxon matrix of morphologic character data and d is a vector of age ranges for each fossil taxon. The numerator on the right hand side of the equation can be separated into the tree likelihood function, [ | , ], and the remaining terms, which comprises the prior. Equations for calculating𝑓𝑓 𝑋𝑋 𝛹𝛹[ |δ , ] are well described in literature and therefore a disquisition on tree likelihoods𝑓𝑓 𝑋𝑋 is𝛹𝛹 notδ presented here. Interested readers are advised to see summaries in Swofford et al. (1996), Lewis (2001), Felsenstein
(2004), and Yang (2014). The density [ | ] describes the tree prior (see below) and
[ | ] is the density of obtaining fossil𝑓𝑓 𝛹𝛹occurrenceπ ranges given (this term is treated herein𝑓𝑓 𝑑𝑑 𝛹𝛹 as a constant, see Gavryushkina et al., 2015). The denominator𝛹𝛹 [ , ] is a
𝑓𝑓 𝑋𝑋 𝑑𝑑 85
normalizing constant and is equal to the marginal probability of the data. Given the
necessary inputs, the posterior distribution of trees is estimated using a numerical
technique called Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) that eliminates the need to
calculate [ , ] when estimating the posterior distribution of trees.
A𝑓𝑓 great𝑋𝑋 𝑑𝑑 strength of the Bayesian paradigm is that sources of uncertainty can be
explicitly incorporated into the evolutionary model via the use of prior distributions on
pertinent parameters (Heath and Moore, 2014). For example, numerous factors can
influence and potentially distort the accuracy of reconstructed evolutionary trees—
arguably the most important parameter in phylogenetic inference. Even in cases where
these other factors are not of primary interest, acknowledging and estimating “nuisance
parameters” is nevertheless important because it reduces the chance that any particular
incorrect assumption will lead to the recovery of specious tree topologies (Huelsenbeck et
al., 2002; Wagner and Marcot, 2010; Gavryushkina et al., 2014). Potential biasing factors
may include variation in rates of morphologic evolution, taxonomic diversification rates,
ancestor-descendant relationships, and (incompletely) sampling taxa over time rather than
from a single time slice (Smith, 1994; Wagner, 2000b, 2000c; Wagner and Marcot, 2010;
Bapst, 2012). Variability in evolutionary rates can be modeled with prior distributions to
describe rate variation among characters. Similarly, rate variation among lineages can be
modeled using uncorrelated ‘relaxed clock’ models where branch-specific rates are independently drawn from the same underlying parametric distribution (Lepage et al.,
2007; Heath and Moore, 2014).
86
Bayesian inference weights the likelihood of a tree by its prior probability. The
fossilized birth-death (FBD) process (Stadler, 2010; Didier et al., 2012; Heath et al.,
2014) is an extension of the constant rate birth-death models commonly used in paleontology (e.g., Raup et al., 1973; Raup, 1985) and considers fossil preservation in addition to diversification dynamics. Below, I briefly describe the FBD process as a tree prior and argue it is well-suited to accommodate these additional sources of concern.
Tree prior.—The fossilized birth‒death (FBD) process is a stochastic branching model for describing macroevolutionary dynamics, fossil preservation, and sampling (Stadler,
2010; Heath et al., 2014). The FBD processes begins at some time to > 0 in the past and
ends when t = 0. As time moves forward (i.e., decreasing toward the “present”), each
lineage may probabilistically undergo one of three process-based events, each according to a distinct constant rate Poisson process: branching (i.e., lineage splitting via speciation)
with rate p, extinction with rate q, or fossil preservation and sampling with rate r (Stadler,
2010; Heath et al., 2014). Lineages alive at the end of the process are sampled with
probability ε corresponding to the sampling fraction of “extant” taxa. Importantly, the
start and end times for the FBD process are arbitrary and time can therefore be shifted to
accommodate temporal frameworks more commonly used in paleontology. For example,
paleontological systematists working on entirely extinct groups (e.g., trilobites) or
sampling taxa from a restricted temporal interval (e.g., Paleozoic crinoids) can shift time
such that t = 0 corresponds to the age of the youngest species sampled. The FBD process
represents a major advance over other birth-death models in paleontology (e.g., Raup,
87
1985) because fossil preservation and sampling issues are modeled in addition to clade
diversification. In Gavryushkina et al.’s (2014) implementation, a lineage may be
sampled more than once, thereby producing an internal node connected to only two
(rather than three) branches. A two-degree internal node in a phylogenetic tree implies a
hypothesized ancestor-descendent relationship, via direct or indirect ancestry (Fig. 3.1)
(Foote, 1996; Gavryushkina et al., 2014, 2015).
The set of stochastic branching, extinction, and sampling events for a single FBD
process gives rise to a “complete” phylogeny with generating parameters π = (p, q, r, ε, to). The “sampled” FBD phylogeny is obtained when all lineages with unsampled descendants produced by the process are pruned from the tree and therefore represents
the reconstructed tree topology and divergence times implied by the sampled taxa (Fig.
3.1). Trees sampled from the FBD process are called sampled ancestor phylogenetic trees
(even if no ancestors were sampled) and their nodes can be labeled to summarize their
unique history of macroevolutionary and sampling events (Gavryushkina et al., 2014).
Equations for calculating the probability density of [ | ] given the FBD parameters p,
q, r, and ε can be derived by modifying birth-death sampling𝑓𝑓 𝛹𝛹 π models used to study virus
transmissions in epidemiology (Stadler, 2010; Stadler et al., 2012; Gavryushkina et al.,
2014; Zhang et al., 2016) and their details are discussed in supplemental information at
the end of this chapter.
88
Taxon sampling, characters analyzed, and specimens examined
The character matrix analyzed herein was constructed as part of a larger project resolving phylogenetic relationships among Paleozoic crinoids. I updated, modified, and expanded the character list of Ausich et al. (2015) to include an ensemble of new characters to better capture variation among post-Ordovician taxa, particularly among ‘cladids’
(Ausich et al., 2015; Wright and Ausich, 2015). Because the taxonomic diversity of fossil crinoids is formidably high for comprehensive analysis, taxon sampling was restricted to
Ordovician through Devonian species and multiple exemplars were sampled at pertinent taxonomic scales appropriate to the present analysis (Brusatte, 2010). The matrix was constructed in an attempt to maximize sampling across the broad spectrum of taxonomic, morphologic, and preservation gradients while keeping rigorous analysis tractable
(Wagner, 2000b; Carlson and Fitzgerald, 2007; Heath et al., 2008).
The dataset contains representative species from Ordovician, Silurian, and
Devonian families of nominal ‘cladids’ (including cyathocrines and dendrocrines), disparids, hybocrinids, and flexibles (all taxa sensu Moore and Laudon, 1943). Species chosen as exemplars were typically the type species of a type genus that well-characterize the distribution of morphologic traits for each higher taxon, but sometimes geologically older species and/or more complete specimens were sampled instead (Table 1).
Characters, plate homologies, and terminology are after Ubaghs (1978) and Ausich et al.
(2015), with updates from Webster and Maples (2006) and Wright (2015). All but four traits were treated as unordered binary or multistate characters (Supplemental Data 1).
89
These four characters were ordered based on known patterns of crinoid development and
arguments for ordering these traits are discussed in Wright (2015) and Webster and
Maples (2006, 2008). Unknown and inapplicable character states were coded as missing.
This new compilation of more than 3,000 specimen-based observations is the largest and most comprehensive morphologic data matrix ever constructed sampling Ordovician and post-Ordovician fossil crinoids (Supplemental Data 2).
In the final matrix, a total of 87 discrete morphologic characters comprising more than 300 character states were sampled across 42 species of non-camerate crinoids
(Supplemental Data 2). Camerates were not included in the analysis because they diverged from non-camerate crinoids by at least the earliest Ordovician (Guensburg and
Sprinkle, 2003; Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015; Cole, in press). Although tip- dating analyses do not per se require use of an outgroup (Ronquist et al., 2012), there are several reasons I used the Tremodocian species Apektocrinus ubaghsi Guensburg and
Sprinkle, 2009 to assist rooting the tree. Apektocrinus was originally described as a tentative cladid that featured traits intermediate between protocrinoids and nominal cladids (Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2009). Protocrinoids were originally considered basal crinoids stemward of the divergence between camerates and non-camerates (Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003). However, Guensburg (2012) subsequently placed protocrinoids within the Camerata and later analyses by Ausich et al. (2015) recovered protocrinoids to be closer to non-camerates than camerates. Regardless of the labile phylogenetic position of protocrinids, both Guensburg (2012) and Ausich et al. (2015) recovered tree topologies with Apektocrinus as the sister taxon to the clade comprised of non-camerate crinoids.
90
Thus, the early stratigraphic position, mosaic distribution of plesiomorphic and
apomorphic traits, and strong support from previous phylogenetic analyses all indicate
Apektocrinus occupies a position near the base of the non-camerate tree (Guensburg and
Sprinkle, 2009; Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015).
Matrix construction required extensive first-hand examination of well-preserved specimens housed in museum collections and the published taxonomic literature. When possible, I coded characters from direct observations of type-series specimens for each species. Although emphasis was placed on observing characters from type specimens, non-type specimens were also examined to ensure the character distributions for each species were coded as completely as possible. Specimens were examined from collections within the United States National Museum of Natural History; the Field
Museum of Natural History, the Lapworth Museum of Geology, and the Natural History
Museum (London).
Phylogenetic analyses
Bayesian phylogenetic analyses were conducted using Markov chain Monte Carlo
(MCMC) sampling in the MPI-version of MrBayes 3.2.5 (Ronquist et al., 2012), which
implements MCMC proposals for FBD trees (Zhang et al., 2016). To account for
differences among alternative model configurations, multiple phylogenetic analyses were
conducted and Bayes Factors (BF) were calculated to statistically compare models.
91
Bayes Factors are used in Bayesian model selection to determine which parameter
configurations provide the best fit to the data and are equal to twice the difference in
marginal log-likelihoods between models (Kass and Raftery, 1995). Following
phylogenetic analyses, I then estimated the marginal log-likelihood of each model using
the stepping-stone sampling method (Xie et al., 2010) with 50 steps and powers of β
corresponding to quantiles of a Beta(0.5, 1.0) distribution. Parsimony-based calculations
were performed using PAUP* 4.0a147 (Swofford, 2002). All additional analyses were
conducted using custom scripts written in the R statistical computing environment
making use of functions from the packages APE (Paradis et al., 2004), and STRAP (Bell
and Lloyd, 2015). Details regarding choices of prior distributions, constraints, and
MCMC convergence are discussed below.
Morphologic character evolution was modeled using the Mk model with equal transition frequencies among character states and a correction for ascertainment bias in character acquisition (Lewis, 2001). The distribution of rates among characters can assume either a uniform “equal rates” model or explicitly account for rate heterogeneity using a skewed parametric distribution. A preliminary parsimony-based estimation of rate
variation in the crinoid character matrix depicts a highly skewed distribution (Fig. 3.2);
strongly suggesting it is unwise to assume a model of equal rates of change among
characters. This is particularly striking given that parsimony-based rate distributions tend
to underestimate morphologic changes and are therefore slightly biased toward equal
rates (Harrison and Larsson, 2015). To further test this hypothesis, I conducted separate
analyses assuming equal, lognormal, and gamma distributed rates of character change.
92
Following Harrison and Larsson’s (2015) recommendation, analyses with gamma or lognormal variation used eight instead of four discrete rate categories (commonly applied to molecular data).
Fossil tip-dating requires a model characterizing the distribution of evolutionary rates throughout the tree. The case of a strict-morphologic clock assumes rates are constant among lineages. However, the assumption of the strict-clock can be “relaxed” by allowing rates to vary among branches throughout the tree (Lepage et al., 2007; Heath and Moore, 2014). To test whether evolutionary rates vary among lineages, analyses using strict and relaxed-clock analyses were conducted. The independent gamma rates
(IGR) relaxed-clock model was applied to account for variation in rates among branches.
The IGR model facilitates episodic “white noise” variation in rates across the tree and is appropriate because large-scale morphologic evolution is a function of both waiting times and stochastic selective forces (Wagner, 2012; Heath and Moore, 2014). A lognormal distribution was placed on the base-rate of the clock using methods outlined in Ronquist et al. (2012).
A key assumption of tip-dating is that evolutionary change is a function of time.
In other words, geologically younger species are expected to have undergone a greater amount of within-lineage evolution (i.e., anagenesis) than older species because more time has elapsed for changes to occur (Smith et al., 1992; Wagner, 2000a). To test whether this assumption holds (and therefore whether or not the tip-dating method is valid for these data), the parsimony-based root-to-tip pathlength of each species from a
93
non-clock analysis was regressed against median age dates from the IGR analysis using
both phylogenetically corrected and uncorrected methods (Lee et al., 2014).
The FBD process was used as a tree prior (i.e., “samplestrat = random” in
MrBayes 3.2.5). The implementation of the FBD in MrBayes reparameterizes the FBD
process in terms of net diversification (= p – q), turnover (= q / p), and sampling
probability (= r / (q + r). I placed an Exp(1) prior on net diversification, a Beta(1,1) uniform prior on turnover, and a Beta(2,2) prior on the sampling probability. To account for uncertainty in divergence time estimation, age ranges for fossil species were given broad uniform distributions typically corresponding to the stratigraphic range of their higher taxon and were taken from an updated version of Webster’s (2003) index of
Paleozoic crinoids (Supplemental Data 2). Because the age of the most recent common ancestor of all species in the analysis is well-constrained by fossil evidence to be near the
base of the Ordovician, the tree age prior was fixed to correspond to the earliest
Tremadocian.
Tip-dating is a computationally demanding phylogenetic method that requires a time-
consuming exploration of parameter space. To assist the analysis, several topological
constraints were applied to reduce MCMC exploration of very unlikely trees and to test
more specific phylogenetic hypotheses (see Guillerme and Cooper, 2016). For example,
the monophyly of disparids and flexibles are well-supported by other studies (Brower,
1995; Ausich, 1998; Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015) and preliminary analyses.
Thus, their status as clades is not in question. However, the branching positions of these
clades within the larger crinoid tree remain an open question and their phylogenetic
94 placement is evaluated herein. A partial constraint was placed on Eustenocrinus,
Iocrinus, Ibexocrinus, and Heviacrinus that allowed for either Merocrinus and/or
Alphacrinus to be included within the disparid clade if the data support that hypothesis.
This was done because whether Merocrinus is closer to cladids or disparids requires additional testing (cf. Ausich, 1998; Guensburg, 2012). Alphacrinus is a stratigraphically old taxon with a combination of unique and disparid-like traits that may or may not be stemward to ingroup Disparida (Guensburg, 2010). A hard constraint was placed on a flexible clade comprised of Homalocrinus, Icthyocrinus, Lecanocrinus, Protaxocrinus, and Sagenocrinites.
Markov chain Monte Carlo analyses consisted of two independent runs of four chains sampling every 4000 generations for 40 million generations per run with a burn-in percentage of 35%. Convergence was assessed using multiple criteria: average standard deviation of split frequencies among chains were below 0.01 (< 0.05 for some IGR analyses) (Gelman and Rubin, 1992), potential scale reduction factors of ~1.0 (Lakner et al., 2008), effective sample sizes greater than 300 (with many > 1000), and visual inspection of log-likelihoods plots among runs using Tracer v.1.6 (Drummond and
Rambaut, 2007). Finally, the analysis with the best fit parameter settings was repeated three times to ensure estimates of optimal tree topologies were robust across runs.
Together, these diagnostics indicate convergence among tree topologies and parameter estimates.
To summarize the posterior distribution of tree topologies, I generated a maximum clade credibility tree (MCC) using TreeAnnotator (Rambaut and Drummond,
95
2015). Although there is no single agreed upon method for summarizing Bayesian
posterior distributions of phylogenetic trees (Heled and Bouckaert, 2013), posterior
probability can be viewed as an optimality criterion in phylogenetic inference (Rannala
and Yang, 1996; Huelsenbeck et al., 2002; Wheeler and Pickett, 2007; Wheeler, 2012;
Rambaut, 2014). The MCC tree is the tree in the posterior distribution with the maximum
product of clade posterior probabilities and represents a Bayesian point estimate of
phylogeny (Rambaut, 2014).
I also ran a series of sensitivity analyses (n > 5) to explore the effects of choosing different priors, including the prior placed (1) on the variance of the gamma distribution in the IGR model, and (2) on the FBD turnover (= q / p) parameter. In all cases, statistically indistinguishable median estimates were obtained for node ages, branch lengths, and FDB parameters. In addition, I calculated the pairwise Robinson-Foulds
(RF) distance (Robinson and Foulds, 1981) within and among tree distributions from separate analyses and ordinated the resulting RF matrix using principal coordinate analysis. A visual inspection of RF distances in principal coordinate space reveals substantial overlap between distributions, with no obvious gradient or isolated “islands”
(analogous to Maddison, 1991) of trees. Thus, the analysis presented herein is considered robust across a range of possible prior configurations.
96
Results
The relationship between within-lineage morphologic evolution and IGR age estimates indicate early to middle Paleozoic crinoids conform well to the assumptions of tip-dating.
Parsimony-based branch lengths from a non-clock analysis reveals geologically younger taxa have higher amounts of anagenesis compared to older taxa (p = 0.017) (Fig. 3.3).
This relationship holds even when accounting for phylogenetic non-independence among comparisons, as phylogenetic independent contrasts (Felsenstein, 1985) also reveal a strong statistical association between branch durations (in the best-fit IGR analysis) and morphologic divergence (measured in parsimony steps from an undated analysis) (p =
0.005) (see Lee et al., 2014).
Bayes Factors provide evidence for heterotachy in crinoid evolution throughout this interval (Supplemental Data 3). The equal rates model of character evolution was strongly rejected in favor of models incorporating rate variation (BF = 166.42 for lognormal, BF = 162.04 for gamma), with the lognormal slightly outperforming a gamma distribution (BF = 4.38). Similarly, the strict-morphologic clock was strongly rejected in favor of the IGR relaxed-clock model accounting rate variation among lineages (BF =
54.56).
The MCC tree from the best fit model is presented in Figure 3.4. Although posterior probabilities for some clades are low, they are comparable to other tip-dating studies using morphologic characters (Lee et al., 2014; Gavryushkina et al., 2015;
Gorscak and O’Connor, 2016). Because Bayesian analyses account for uncertainty in the
97
phylogenetic placement of taxa, it is important to stress that relationships depicted in
Figure 3.4 are not the only ones supported in the posterior distribution. However, MCC
tree topologies were broadly consistent across all analyses, indicating topological results
are robust across different model configurations. Keeping uncertainty in mind, there are
many salient features of the MCC tree that support previous phylogenetic hypotheses and
throw light on several taxonomic questions.
The base of the MCC tree is characterized by a basal divergence between
disparids (and disparid-like taxa) and all other non-camerate crinoids. Neither
Merocrinus nor Alphacrinus were placed within the clade comprised of Iocrinus,
Ibexocrinus, Eustenocrinus, and Heviacrinus. However, Merocrinus is placed as the sister taxon to Metabolocrinus, which together form a sister to the above mentioned disparid clade. Interestingly, Alphacrinus is placed as the sister taxon to the clade comprised of Merocrinus, Metabolocrinus, and disparids, which supports Guensburg’s
(2010) original hypothesis of Alphacrinus being a basal disparid-like taxon and contrasts with Guensburg’s (2012) subsequent analysis recovering Alphacrinus as nested within the disparid clade.
Similar to other studies (Ausich, 1998; Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015), a clade comprised of cladids and hybocrinids was recovered. This clade is strongly supported with posterior probability 0.96. The hybocrinids Hybocrinus and Hybocystites are sister taxa and occupy a nested position within a clade of dicyclic ‘cyathocrine’ cladids (i.e., Carabocrinus and Porocrinus), suggesting these taxa are pseudomonocyclic
(Sprinkle, 1982; Guensubrg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015).
98
A clade comprised of Cupulocrinus and flexible crinoids was recovered as sister
to a clade comprised of only cladids, with the inclusive clade supported with posterior
probability 0.65. Although Cupulocrinus is a nominal cladid (sensu Moore and Laudon,
1943), it is placed closer to flexibles than other cladids in 96% of trees in the posterior
distribution.
The large clade comprising the most recent common ancestor of
Plicodendrocrinus and Corematocrinus and its descendants contains a scattering of taxa traditionally placed within the cladid orders Cyathocrinida and Dendrocrinida (sensu
Moore and Laudon, 1943). Thus, the traditionally recognized ‘cyathocrine’ and
‘dendrocrine’ cladids represent evolutionary grades of body plan organization rather than clades. For example a clade of cyathocrine-grade crinoids containing the most recent common of Thalamocrinus and Gasterocoma is supported with posterior probability
0.80, with subclades supported by posterior probabilities between 0.53‒0.75. Similarly, a different clade containing the most recent common ancestor of Lecythocrinus and
Petalocrinus also features ‘cyathocrine’ morphologies. These results support (perhaps unfortunately) long-held suspicions of taxonomic anarchy among cladids recognized by
previous authors (McIntosh, 1986; 2001; Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993; Kammer and
Ausich, 1992, 1996; Webster and Maples, 2006).
The clade of dendrocrine-grade crinoids containing the most recent common
ancestor of Thenarocrinus and Corematocrinus, and its constituent subclades, are
supported with posterior probabilities between 0.68‒0.84. This clade contains a subclade
comprised of members of the Rutkowskicrinidae, Glossocrinidae, Corematocrinidae, and
99
Amabilicrinidae. This clade is supported with posterior probability 0.84 and is equivalent to the Superfamily Glossocrinacea originally recognized by Webster et al. (2003).
Discussion
It is generally appreciated that quantitative phylogenetic methods do not typically take full advantage of the complete spectrum of information supplied by the fossil record
(Wagner and Marcot, 2010). However, recently developed probabilistic macroevolutionary models and powerful computational tools have provided major advancements for estimating phylogenies containing fossil taxa and accommodating paleontologic idiosyncrasies, such as sampling taxa (incompletely) over time (Stadler,
2010; Ronquist et al., 2012; Gavryushkina et al., 2014; Lee and Palci, 2015). This paper builds on these advances by implementing a Bayesian framework to estimate time-scaled phylogenetic hypotheses of early to middle Paleozoic fossil crinoids. The resulting phylogeny indicates extensive taxonomic revisions are necessary, especially among the
‘cladid’ crinoids, and points to several areas where further analysis at lower taxonomic levels is needed. In addition to evolutionary implications for crinoids, the results also raise several key issues regarding probabilistic approaches to phylogenetic inference in the fossil record and suggest possible directions for future research.
100
Implications for crinoid evolution and systematics.—The phylogenetic analysis presented herein offers several insights into early to middle Paleozoic crinoid evolution and provides a basis for requisite taxonomic revisions. Although I provide suggestions for revisions below, attempting to more fully resolve outstanding problems in crinoid systematics and classification is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, that topic is addressed in a companion paper (see Wright et al., in press).
A basal divergence between disparids and most other non-camerate crinoids has been recovered in a number of recent phylogenetic studies (cf. Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015), including the analysis herein. Although several nominal ‘cladids’ are stemward of this split (see Ausich et al., 2015, fig. 5), the overwhelming majority of nominal cladids (sensu Moore and Laudon, 1943) are not. Thus, disparids are nested within a clade comprised of the common ancestor of all nominal ‘cladids’ (sensu Moore and Laudon, 1943) and all of its descendants. Following Simms and Sevastopulo (1993), the Flexibilia and Articulata are placed within the Cladida, but no previous phylogenetic hypothesis has considered the Disparida a subclade within the Cladida. In an effort to retain as much of the original intent and traditional use of taxonomic names as possible, a re-definition of the Cladida is necessary to prevent the Disparida from being considered a subclade of cladids, particularly since the Cladida is already in need of extensive revision for other reasons. A simple solution to remedy the problem could be obtained using phylogeny-based clade definitions that recognize the Disparida and Cladida (sensu
Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993) as sister clades. This would require orphaning only a small number of so-called ‘cladids’ (sensu Moore and Laudon, 1943) as stem taxa to the
101
Disparida + Cladida clade and retain the majority of cladids (sensu Moore and Laudon,
1943) within the more inclusive Cladida (sensu Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993). The
Disparida is considered herein to include the most recent common ancestor of
Alphacrinus and Eustenocrinus. Thus, Merocrinus and Metabolocrinus (typically
considered cladids [Ausich, 1998], but see Guensburg, 2012) are tentatively placed
within the disparid clade (Fig. 3.4), but further work and character-based analyses are needed to confirm the precise phylogenetic position of these problematic taxa. A more comprehensive discussion with rigorous phylogenetic definitions and a revised classification for cladid and disparid clades is provided in Wright et al. (in press).
Previous analyses of Ordovician taxa have recovered monophyletic groups, such as a clade comprised of cyathocrine cladids and hybocrinids (Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015). This offered some hope that potentially the Cyathocrinida might be monophyletic (Ausich, 1998; Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015). However, the present analysis rejects the monophyly of the Cyathocrinida because some nominal cyathocrines are more closely related to nominal dendrocrines than to other cyathocrines.
If these results are taken seriously, then an extensive revision of higher taxa within the
Cladida is needed. To further test this issue, I conducted an additional analysis placing a hard topological constraint on all cyathocrine cladids (see Bergsten et al., 2013).
Comparing this analysis to the best fit model described above, Bayes Factors strongly reject a model where cyathocrines are forced to be monophyletic (BF = 9.64). Thus, caution should be exercised when extrapolating results from an analysis considering one timeslice to subsequent time intervals. Nevertheless, there is strong support for a clade of
102
cyathocrine-grade cladids and hybocrinids (Ausich, 1998; Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et
al., 2015). This clade is characterized by a number of morphologic features convergent
with blastozoan echinoderms, such as thecal respiratory structures, calyx and/or arm plate
reduction, and recumbent ambulacra. Given the strong statistical support and
morphologic distinctness of this clade, I propose the name Porocrinoidea to represent this
idiosyncratic group of crinoids. The Hybocrinida is considered herein a subclade within
the Porocrinoidea (Fig. 3.4).
The position of Cupulocrinus at the base of the flexible clade has strong statistical
support and corroborates earlier studies linking Cupulocrinus with flexible crinoids
(Springer, 1911, 1920; Brower, 1995; Ausich, 1998) (Fig. 3.4). For example, Springer
(1920) considered Cupulocrinus to have traits intermediate between cladids and flexibles and hypothesized a species of Cupulocrinus was ancestral to the Flexibilia. Because phylogenetic relationships were estimated using methods that include the possibility of potentially sampling ancestral morphotaxa, Springer’s (1920) hypothesis can be quantitatively addressed. The posterior probability of a taxon being a sampled ancestor can be estimated as the frequency in which it was recovered to have a zero-length branch
in the posterior distribution of trees (Matzke, 2015). Examining the posterior distribution
of trees from the best-fit model, the probability of Cupulocrinus humilis (Billings, 1857) being an ancestral morphotaxon is 0.99. Given that a clade is defined to be an ancestor and all of its descendants, Cupulocrinus is removed from the Cladida and placed within the Flexibilia. Additional analyses with more comprehensive sampling of Cupulocrinus
103
and flexible species (including a broader sample of taxon-specific characters) are needed
to further test this hypothesis at finer taxonomic scales.
The sister clade to the Flexibilia contains the majority of all nominal taxa
currently placed within the Cladida (sensu Moore and Laudon, 1943). This clade originated prior to the close of the Ordovician and contains most taxa traditionally placed within the orders Dendrocrinida and Cyathocrinida. Notably, all species in this clade share a more recent common ancestor with an extant crinoid than with flexible crinoids
(Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993). Thus, I propose the name Eucladida to distinguish this important group of crinoids from their sister clade.
The recovery of the Glossocrinacea as a clade provides quantitative support for
evolutionary inferences discussed in Webster et al. (2003). These “transitional
dendrocrinids” (McIntosh, 2001) are among the first cladids to evolve pinnules and are
traditionally placed within the Order Poteriocrinida. Most crinoid workers since
publication of the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology (Moore and Teichert, 1978) have
hesitated to recognize the Poteriocrinida because they are widely considered to be
polyphyletic (Kammer and Ausich, 1992; McIntosh, 2001). Regardless of their status as a
clade or a grade, the crinoids considered poteriocrines in the Treatise are the most
dominant and ecologically abundant group of crinoids throughout the middle to late
Paleozoic (Ausich et al., 1994). Notably, the ancestor of extant articulate crinoids is
widely considered to be placed among a paraphyletic group of ‘poteriocrine’ crinoids
(Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993; Webster and Jell, 1999; Rouse et al., 2013). The recovery
of a clade of poteriocrines herein suggests there may be some phylogenetic structure
104 present among Paleozoic poteriorcrine taxa. However, future analyses sampling younger taxa and a broader sample of Treatise (Moore and Teichert, 1978) poteriocrines are needed to test whether this is the case.
Probabilistic approaches to fossil phylogenies.—Tree-based comparative methods are becoming commonplace in paleontology for testing macroevolutionary patterns and processes within a fully phylogenetic context. To date, most of these studies apply an a posteriori timescaling algorithm to an unscaled cladogram (e.g., Brusatte et al., 2008;
Hunt and Carrano, 2010; Lloyd et al., 2012; Hopkins and Smith, 2015). Although useful for removing the zero-length branches that arise from polytomies in cladistic hypotheses, many of these a posteriori timescaling methods are problematic because they make ad- hoc and unrealistic assumptions regarding node ages and/or ancestor-descendant relationships (Bapst and Hopkins, in press). The cal3 method developed by Bapst (2013) is a promising a posteriori approach that overcomes many of these problems via a model of branching, extinction, and sampling similar to the FBD process. However, this technique requires a priori estimates of these parameters and can only be applied to unscaled cladograms. The Bayesian tip-dating approach advocated herein simultaneously estimates tree topologies and divergence dates using time-stamped comparative data.
Thus, a sample of trees from the posterior distribution of a tip-dated analysis provides a more natural framework for testing macroevolutionary patterns using the fossil record while accounting for uncertainty in tree topology and node ages (Close et al., 2015;
Gorscak and O’Connor, 2016).
105
Evaluating the efficacy of competing phylogenetic methods is a contentious (and
sometimes acrimonious) debate, yet inferences using simple probabilistic methods
perform well when inferring trees from paleontologic data and can explicitly consider
different evolutionary and sampling parameters potentially influencing recovered
topologies (Wagner, 1998; Wagner and Marcot, 2010; Wright and Hillis, 2014). Thus, it
seems that in the future more phylogenetic analyses will take advantage of fully
probabilistic frameworks such as the one presented herein. However, researchers
conducting tree-based comparative analyses on older (or otherwise unscaled) cladograms
require an a posteriori time-scaling approach, which might take the form of applying
FBD-like divergence dating methods to a fixed cladistic topology (Bapst and Hopkins, in
press). Regardless of whether Bayesian tip-dating or a model-based a posteriori method
like cal3 becomes the dominant approach to timescaling trees in the future, it is apparent that both of these approaches recover more accurate estimates and are strongly recommended over ad-hoc methods when conducting downstream macroevolutionary
analyses.
Evolutionary patterns among early to middle Paleozoic crinoids strongly favor
models incorporating rate heterogeneity among characters and among lineages. This not
only supports previous investigations demonstrating differential disparity patterns among
crinoid clades (Foote, 1994; Deline and Ausich, 2011), but may also be a more general
feature of morphologic evolution. Probabilistic models of morphologic evolution
commonly assume either uniform or gamma distributed rates among characters. Models
of rate variation predict some characters evolve at higher rates than others (and therefore
106
anticipate a degree of homoplasy in the data). Variable rate distributions are potentially
more realistic than an equal rates model because morphologic characters commonly
experience different selective pressures and/or developmental constraints. Moreover,
accounting for rate variation has a practical value because it may help resolve branches at different levels in a phylogenetic tree (Wright and Hillis, 2014).
Until recently, only uniform and gamma distributions were available to model
among character rate variation in common software packages for Bayesian inference
(Huelsenbeck et al., 2015). However, Wagner (2012) found that fossil datasets commonly
favor lognormal rather than gamma distributed rates, particularly for echinoderm and
mollusc character matrices. Interestingly, gamma and lognormal rate distributions arise
from different underlying processes of character evolution. Gamma rate distributions
assume rates are Poisson processes, whereas lognormal rate distributions suggest
morphologic evolution results from multiple probabilistic processes and/or hierarchical
integration among characters (Wagner, 2012). Thus, the relative fit of the data to these
two distributions gives some insight into the dynamics of character change. The analysis
herein provides positive evidence supporting lognormal over gamma-distributed rates, but only modestly (BF = 4.38). Although the choice of rate distribution had no obvious effect on recovered topologies herein, other workers should nevertheless test alternative distributions and choose the best fit model for their data (Harrison and Larsson, 2015).
The FBD process provides paleontologists with a far more realistic tree prior model than others previously available. For example, the FBD tree prior has recently been demonstrated to outperform a uniform prior (Matzke and Wright, 2016). Other
107
models, such as the Yule process or simple birth-death process are strongly violated when making phylogenetic inferences from paleontologic data. Moreover, the FBD tree prior has a high level of internal consistency for estimating age dates and a good fit to morphologic and geologic data in empirical, well-characterized data sets (e.g., penguins and canids, see Drummond and Stadler, 2016). Analyses of the crinoid data set herein assumed the simple case of constant rates for macroevolutionary and sampling parameters. However, the FBD process can be extended to a more sophisticated time- varying (i.e., piecewise-constant) model that may be useful for other data sets. Similarly, models could be developed to account for geographic variation in sampling probabilities
(Wagner and Marcot, 2013). Such models may be especially beneficial for studies with larger, more comprehensive character matrices spanning similar to longer time intervals than considered herein (Gavryushkina et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016).
A major innovation of the FBD process as a tree prior is the ability to account for sampling ancestor-descendant relationships in phylogenetic analysis. Although the notion of discovering “true” ancestors is somewhat contentious (see Smith, 1994; Foote, 1996), modeling studies suggest ancestral morphotaxa are likely present in the fossil record of many paleontologically important groups (Foote, 1996). Gavryushkina et al. (2014) demonstrated that sampled ancestors should be accounted for when estimating phylogenies, even when ancestral morphotaxa are not of specific interest in the analysis, because not including them introduces biases in parameter estimation. Thus, even if sampled ancestors are considered nuisance parameters (Close et al., 2015; Gorscak and
108
O’Connor, 2016), they may nevertheless be important for accurately estimating more accurate tree topologies and node ages.
Parameter estimation under the FBD process does not require exhaustive sampling of fossil taxa, but it does require a representative random sample of species
(e.g., the sampling strategy used herein) (Didier et al., 2012). However, the application of sampled-ancestor tip-dating methods to exhaustively sampled species-level (sensu Smith,
1994) or specimen-level data represents an important (but unexplored) frontier in phylogeny-based analyses of macroevolution. For example, coding multiple fossil specimens of species-level morphotaxa from different time horizons and/or geographic localities may provide a means for testing whether speciation events occur primarily though budding or bifurcating cladogenesis (Gavryushkina et al., 2014; Hunt and Slater,
2016). In addition, paleontologists are commonly interested in whether morphologic change is punctuated or gradual (Eldredge and Gould, 1972; Hunt, 2008). Testing alternative probabilistic models of character evolution within a similar phylogenetic and sampling framework as described above, where each model makes different assumptions about punctuated vs. gradual rates of change (as well as durations of stasis), would provide additional insight into the dynamics of morphologic evolution during speciation events (see Wagner and Marcot, 2010).
The emerging synthesis between paleontology and model-based phylogenetics contributes to the growing consensus that research programs in systematic paleontology are greatly enhanced when grounded in rigorous analytical approaches (Smith, 1994;
Wagner, 2000a; Wagner and Marcot, 2010; Slater and Harmon, 2013; Hunt and Slater,
109
2016). Many of the analytical tools discussed in this paper were originally developed for non-paleontologic purposes. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising there is plenty of room for future modifications and refinement of these techniques to better test paleontologic patterns. Nevertheless, the development and application of these methods has already expanded our ability to quantitatively address macroevolutionary questions. Continued research implementing probabilistic approaches in phylogeny-based paleontology will likely return the favor and provide neontologists with evolutionary insights and unique perspectives only accessible to paleontologists.
110
Supplemental information: Calculating the probability density of FBD
phylogenetic trees
This section provides equations for calculating the probability density of a sampled ancestor phylogenetic tree generated by the fossilized birth‒death process. These trees are
used as Bayesian priors for phylogenies (i.e., topology and divergence times) in the tip-
dating analysis presented in the main text. The equations presented here follow Stadler
(2010), Stadler et al. (2012), and Didier et al. (2012), with subsequent modifications by
Gavryushkina et al. (2014). I encourage readers to refer to these references for additional
details on birth-death-sampling models and their applications. Interested readers are also
encouraged to see Gavryushkina et al. (2014) and Zhang et al. (2016) for a detailed
description of a birth-death-sampling process with time heterogeneous (i.e., piecewise-
constant) rates, as well as Bapst’s (2013) probabilistic method to a posteriori timescale
un-dated cladograms. Please note that the notation used in this paper differs in places from that of the references mentioned above to be more consistent with the paleontological literature (e.g., Foote, 1997, 2000; Wagner and Marcot, 2010; Bapst,
2012).
For simplicity, ordered trees are used in the derivation below. However, ordered trees are subsequently modified to labeled trees (using a conversion factor) to calculate likelihoods (Stadler, 2010). Ordered trees distinguish between left and right branches and identify nodes via a unique left-right path from the root, whereas labeled trees instead give sampled nodes distinct labels to describe branching patterns and divergences
111
(Stadler, 2010; Gavryushikina et al., 2014). Each labeled phylogenetic tree (Ψ) consists of two elements: a discrete, ranked tree topology Ψ and a continuous time vector τ. The ranked tree topology Ψ with ordered branching events is simply the branching pattern of common ancestry among m taxa distributed at the tips of the tree (i.e., an unscaled cladogram). The time vector τ assigns an unambiguous time to each node, such that it contains the following elements arranged in the exact descending temporal order in which they occur in the tree: the m – 1 lineage splitting times (x1…xm-1,where xm-1 < … < x1); the
m tip-taxon sampling times (y1…ym, where ym < … < y1); and k sampling times of two- degree nodes (z1…zk, where zk < … < z1) (Gavryushkina et al., 2014). The density of an
ordered tree can be converted to a labeled tree by multiplying by the conversion factor [2n
+ m – 1 / n!(m + k)!] (see Stadler, 2010, p. 402).
To obtain the probability density of a given sampled ancestor phylogenetic tree
(Ψ), the likelihood is calculated along each branch b in Ψ moving backward in time. The
probability of any one event (i.e., branching with rate p, extinction with rate q, or
sampling with rate r) occurring during a very small time step Δt is the product of its
Poisson rate and Δt. For example, the probability of a single branching event over a small
time interval is pΔt. The probabilities corresponding to any event happening more than
once during Δt is summarized by an order term, O(Δt2) (Feller, 1968). If Δt is chosen to
be very small, then the probability of more than one event happening during the time
interval can be ignored (see below). Because time is measured from the tips backward in
time toward the root, each small time step Δt moves further into the past.
112
Let Ψb(t) be the probability density that a lineage corresponding to branch b at
time t produced the observed Ψ between time t and t = 0. Thus,
Ψb(to) = f [Ψ | π = (p, q, r, ε, to)].
To obtain the probability density for Ψb(t), I follow Stadler et al. (2012) and first consider
describing Ψb(t + Δt) and assume Ψb(t) is known. After deriving an equation for how the
probability density changes over a small time interval Δt, the definition of a derivative
can be used to obtain a differential equation describing the change in probability toward
the root. This differential equation is then integrated along branches to solve for Ψb(t)
across the phylogeny.
Consider the possible evolutionary histories for single lineage along b from time t
to Δt in the past. Moving down the branch, a lineage may either have undergone at least
one branching event during Δt or experienced no event at all (note that extinction is not
considered here because a lineage cannot logically have gone extinct prior to its
subsequent sampling). Thus, the equation for Ψb(t + Δt) is
2 2 Ψb(t + Δt) = (1 – (p + q + r)Δt – O(Δt )) Ψb(t) + pΔt 2S0 (t) Ψb(t) + O(Δt ),
(A1) where S0 (t) is the probability that a lineage at time t has no sampled descendants (Stadler,
2010). The quantity S0 (t) is given by Gavryushkina et al. (2014) as:
113
(1 ) (1 + ) + + + −𝑐𝑐1(1 ) + (1 + ) ( ) = 2 2 , 𝑒𝑒 1 − 𝑐𝑐 − 𝑐𝑐 𝑝𝑝 𝑞𝑞 𝑟𝑟 𝑐𝑐1 −𝑐𝑐2 𝑒𝑒 − 𝑐𝑐2 𝑐𝑐2 𝑆𝑆0 𝑡𝑡 where 𝑝𝑝
2 = ( + + ) + 4 and = . 2 𝑝𝑝 − 𝑞𝑞 − 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 − 𝑟𝑟 𝑐𝑐1 �� 𝑝𝑝 𝑞𝑞 𝑟𝑟 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝� 𝑐𝑐2 𝑐𝑐1
The logic behind Equation A1 is straightforward to interpret if each term on the right hand side is considered in isolation. The first term, (1 – (p + q + r)Δt – O(Δt2)), is the probability that no event takes place along b during Δt. The second term reflects the probability of lineage splitting, where pΔt is the probability that one branching event takes place and 2S0 (t) accounts for the probability that one of the two descendant lineages (either the left or right descendant) left no sampled descendants in the observed tree. The final term, O(Δt2), is a summary term corresponding to the probabilities for multiple events during Δt.
Now that we have an expression for Ψb(t + Δt), if we modify Equation A1 to consider how the probability density changes from time t to time t + Δt, we get:
( + ) ( ) = – ( + + ) ( ) + 2 ( ) ( ) + ( ). 𝜳𝜳𝑏𝑏 𝑡𝑡 Δ𝑡𝑡 − 𝜳𝜳𝑏𝑏 𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝 𝑞𝑞 𝑟𝑟 𝜳𝜳𝑏𝑏 𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝𝑆𝑆0 𝑡𝑡 𝜳𝜳𝑏𝑏 𝑡𝑡 𝑂𝑂 Δ𝑡𝑡 Δ𝑡𝑡
Finally, taking the limit as Δt → 0 results in the differential equation:
114
( ) = – ( + + ) ( ) + 2 ( ) ( ). 𝑑𝑑 𝜳𝜳𝑏𝑏 𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝 𝑞𝑞 𝑟𝑟 𝜳𝜳𝑏𝑏 𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝𝑆𝑆0 𝑡𝑡 𝜳𝜳𝑏𝑏 𝑡𝑡 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (A2)
Letting Te represent the terminal end of a branch b, then the initial values at t = Te are:
( ) ( ) if has two descendant branches, and ( ) if has one descendant branch b ( ) = 𝑏𝑏1 𝑒𝑒 𝑏𝑏2 𝑒𝑒 1 2 𝑝𝑝 𝜳𝜳( )𝑇𝑇 𝜳𝜳 𝑇𝑇 if 𝑏𝑏 has no descendant branches and𝑏𝑏 >𝑏𝑏0 𝑏𝑏1 𝑒𝑒 1 𝑏𝑏 𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟 𝜳𝜳 𝑇𝑇 if 𝑏𝑏 has no descendant branches and = 0. 𝜳𝜳 𝑇𝑇 � 𝑒𝑒 𝑟𝑟𝑆𝑆0 𝑇𝑇𝑒𝑒 𝑏𝑏 𝑇𝑇 𝑒𝑒 𝜀𝜀 𝑏𝑏 𝑇𝑇
Conditioning on the clade’s origin (i.e., the age of the root) and the event Sε, where Sε
denotes that at least one lineage was sampled at the end of the process, the closed form
solution for the probability density of Ψ accounting for labeled trees is (Stadler, 2010, p.
400; Gavryushkina et al., 2014, equation 3):
( ) = [ | = ( , , , , , )]
𝑏𝑏 𝑜𝑜 𝑜𝑜 𝜀𝜀 𝜳𝜳 𝑡𝑡 𝑓𝑓 𝛹𝛹 π 1 𝑝𝑝 𝑞𝑞 𝑟𝑟 𝜀𝜀 𝑡𝑡 (𝑆𝑆 ) ( ) = 𝑚𝑚+𝑛𝑛−1 2 ( ) 𝑚𝑚 , ( + )! ( (1𝑘𝑘 𝑛𝑛 ( )) ( ) 𝑟𝑟 𝜀𝜀 𝜑𝜑 𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑜 𝑟𝑟𝑆𝑆0 𝑦𝑦𝑖𝑖 2 𝑖𝑖 � 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑥𝑥 � 𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚 𝑘𝑘 ̂0 𝑜𝑜 𝑖𝑖=1 𝑖𝑖=1 𝜑𝜑 𝑦𝑦 𝑝𝑝 − 𝑆𝑆 𝑡𝑡 (A3)
where n is the number of ε sampled lineages, S0, c1, and c2 are defined as above, with
4 ( ) = , 2(1 ) + (1 ) + (1 + ) 2 −𝑐𝑐1𝑥𝑥 2 𝑐𝑐1𝑥𝑥 2 𝜑𝜑 𝑥𝑥 2 2 − 𝑐𝑐2 𝑒𝑒 − 𝑐𝑐 𝑒𝑒 𝑐𝑐
and 115
( ) ( ) = 1 . + ( (1 ) ) ( ) 𝜀𝜀 𝑝𝑝 − 𝑞𝑞 𝑆𝑆̂0 𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑜 − − 𝑝𝑝−𝑞𝑞 𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝 − 𝜀𝜀 − 𝑞𝑞 𝑒𝑒
Accessibility of supplemental data
Supplemental data deposited in Dryad data package http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.6hb7j
116
References
Angelin, N.P., 1878, Iconographia Crinoideorum: in stratis Sueciae Siluricis fossilium. Samson
and Wallin, Holmiae, 62 p.
Alroy, J., 2010, Geographical, environmental and intrinsic biotic controls on Phanerozoic
marine diversification: Palaeontology, v. 53, p. 1211–1235.
Ausich, W.I., 1998, Phylogeny of Arenig to Caradoc Crinoids (Phylum Echinodermata)
and suprageneric classification of the Crinoidea: The University of Kansas
Paleontological Contributions Papers, New Series, no. 9, 36 p.
Ausich, W.I., and Kammer, T.W., 2001, The study of crinoids during the 20th century
and the challenges of the 21st century: Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 1161–
1173.
Ausich, W.I., Kammer, T.W., and Baumiller, T.K., 1994, Demise of the Middle
Paleozoic crinoid fauna: a single extinction event or rapid faunal turnover?:
Paleobiology, v. 20, p. 345–361.
Ausich, W.I., Kammer, T.W., Rhenberg, E.C., and Wright. D.F., 2015, Early phylogeny
of crinoids within the Pelmatozoan clade: Palaeontology, v. 58, p. 937–952.
Bapst, D.W. 2012, When can clades be potentially resolved with morphology?: PLoS
One e62312. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062312
Bapst, D.W., 2013, A stochastic rate‐calibrated method for time‐scaling phylogenies of
fossil taxa: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 4, p.724–733.
117
Bapst, D.W., and Hopkins, M.J., in press, Comparing cal3 and other a posteriori time-
scaling approaches in a case study with the Pterocephaliid trilobites:
Paleobiology.
Bapst, D.W., Wright, A.M., Matzke, N.J., and Lloyd, G.T., 2016, Topology, divergence
dates, and macroevolutionary inferences vary between different tip-dating
approaches applied to fossil theropods (Dinosauria): Biology Letters, 12,
20160237, doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0237.
Bather, F.A., 1890, British fossil crinoids. I. Historical introduction: Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, ser. 6, v. 5, p. 306‒310.
Bather, F.A., 1899, A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa: British Association
for the Advancement of Science (1898), p. 916–923.
Bather, F.A., 1900, Part III The Echinoderma. The Pelmatozoa, in Lankester, E.R., ed., A
Treatise on Zoology: Adam and Charles Black, London, p. 94–204.
Bell, M.A., and Lloyd, G.T., 2015, strap: an R package for plotting phylogenies against
stratigraphy and assessing their stratigraphic congruence: Palaeontology, v. 58, p.
379–389.
Bergsten, J., Nilsson, A.N., and Ronquist, F., 2013, Bayesian tests of topology
hypotheses with an example from diving beetles: Systematic Biology, v. 62, p. 660‒
673.
Billings, E., 1857, New species of fossils from Silurian rocks of Canada. Canada Geological
Survey, Report of Progress 1853-1856: Report for the year 1856, p. 247‒345.
118
Billings, W.R., 1887. A new genus and three new species of crinoids from the Trenton
Formation with notes on a large specimen of Dendrocrinus proboscidiatus: The Ottawa
Naturalist (Ottawa Field Naturalists' Club Transactions), v. 111, p. 49‒54.
Bokma, F., 2008, Detection of "punctuated equilibrium" by Bayesian estimation of
speciation and extinction rates, ancestral character states, and rates of anagenetic
and cladogenetic evolution on a molecular phylogeny: Evolution, v. 62, p. 2718–
26.
Brower, J.C., 1995, Dendrocrinid crinoids from the Ordovician of northern Iowa and
southern Minnesota: Journal of Paleontology, v.69, p. 939–960.
Brusatte, S.L., 2010, Representing supraspecific taxa in higher‐level phylogenetic
analyses: guidelines for palaeontologists: Palaeontology, v. 53, p. 1–9.
Brusatte, S.L., Benton, M.J., Ruta, M. and Lloyd, G.T., 2008, Superiority, competition,
and opportunism in the evolutionary radiation of dinosaurs: Science, v., 321,
p.1485–1488.
Clarke, J.A., and Middleton, K.M., 2008, Mosaicism, modules, and the evolution of
birds: results from a Bayesian approach to the study of morphological evolution
using discrete character data: Systematic Biology, v. 57, p. 185–201.
Cole, S.R., in press, Phylogeny and morphologic evolution of the Ordovician Camerata
(Class Crinoidea, Phylum Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology.
119
Conrad, T.A., 1842, Descriptions of new species of organic remains belonging to the Silurian,
Devonian and Carboniferous Systems of the U. S.: Philadelphia Academy Natural
Sciences, Journal, v. 8, old ser. no. 2, p. 228‒280.
Close, R.A., Friedman, M., Lloyd, G.T. and Benson, R.B., 2015, Evidence for a mid-
Jurassic adaptive radiation in mammals: Current Biology, v. 25, p. 2137‒2142.
Deline, B., and Ausich, W.I., 2011, Testing the plateau: a reexamination of disparity and
morphologic constraints in early Paleozoic crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 37, p.214‒
236.
Didier, G., Royer-Carenzi, M. and Laurin, M., 2012, The reconstructed evolutionary
process with the fossil record: Journal of Theoretical Biology, v. 315, p.26‒37.
Donoghue, P.C.J., and Benton, M.J., 2007, Rocks and clocks: calibrating the Tree of Life using
fossils and molecules: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 22, p. 424‒431.
Drummond, A.J., and Rambaut, A. 2007, BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling
trees: BMC Evolutionary Biology: v. 7, doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-214.
Drummond, A. J., and Stadler, T., 2016, Bayesian phylogenetic estimation of fossil ages:
arXiv, preprint 1601.07447v1 dos Reis, M., Donoghue, P.C., and Yang, Z., 2016. Bayesian molecular clock dating of
species divergences in the genomics era: Nature Reviews Genetics, v. 17, p. 71‒
80.
Eldredge, N., and Gould, S.J., 1972, Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic
gradualism. in. Schopf, T.J.M., (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper
and Company, San Fransisco, p. 82‒115.
120
Feller, W., 1968, An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, v. 1 (third
edition): New York, Wiley, 509 p.
Felsenstein, J., 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist, v.
126, p.1‒15.
Felsenstein, J., 2004, Inferring phylogenies, vol 2: Sunderland, Sinauer Associates, 664 p.
Foote, M., 1994, Morphological disparity in Ordovician-Devonian crinoids and the early
saturation of morphological space: Paleobiology, v. 20, p.320–344.
Foote, M., 1996, On the probability of ancestors in the fossil record: Paleobiology, v. 22,
p. 141–151.
Foote, M., 1997, Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability:
Paleobiology, v. 23, p. 278‒300.
Foote, M., 2000, Origination and extinction components of taxonomic diversity: general
problems: Paleobiology, v. 26, p.74‒102.
Foote, M., and Raup, D.M., 1996, Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa:
Paleobiology, v. 22, p. 121‒140.
Frest, T.J., and Strimple, H.L., 1978, Manicrinus (Nov.), a cladid evolutionary homeomorph of
the bottom dwelling Hybocrinus, Brownsport (Silurian. Ludlow) of Tennessee:
Southeastern Geology, v. 19, p. 157‒175.
Gahn, F.J., and Kammer, T.W., 2002, The cladid crinoid Barycrinus from the Burlington
Limestone (Early Osagean) and the phylogenetics of Mississippian botryocrinids:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 76, p. 123–133.
121
Gavryshkina, A., Welch, D., Stadler, T., and Drummond, A. J., 2014, Bayesian inference
of sampled ancestor trees for epidemiology and fossil calibration: PLoS
Computational Biology, v. 10, e1003919.
Gavryshkina, A., Heath, T.A., Ksepka, D.T., Stadler, T., Welch, D., and Drummond,
A.J., 2015, Bayesian total evidence dating reveals the recent crown radiation of
penguins: arXiv, preprint 1506.04797
Gelman, A. and Rubin, D. B., 1992, Inference from iterative simulation using multiple
sequences: Statistical Science, v. 7, p. 457–472.
Gil Cid, M.D., Alonso, P.D, and Pobes, E.S., 1996, Reconstrucción y modo de videa de
Heviacrinus melendezi nov. gen. nov. sp. (Disparida, Iocrinidae), primer crinoide descrito
del Ordovícico medio de los Montes de Toledo (España): Revista de la Sociedad
Geológica España, v. 9, no. 1-2, p. 19‒27.
Goldfuss, G. A., 1826‒44. Petrefacta Germaniae, tam ea, Quae in Museo Universitatis Regiae
Borussicae Fridericiae Wilhelmiae Rhenanea, serventur, quam alia quaecunque in Museis
Hoeninghusiano Muensteriano aliisque, extant, iconibus et descriiptionns illustrata. --
Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der Petrefacten Deutschlands und der Angränzende
Länder, unter Mitwirkung des Hern Grafen Georg zu Münster, herausgegeben von
August Goldfuss. v. 1 (1826‒1833), Divisio prima. Zoophytorum reliquiae, p. 1‒114;
Divisio secunda. Radiariorum reliquiae, p. 115‒221 [Echinodermata]; Divisio tertia.
Annulatorium reliquiae, p. 222-242; v. 2 (1834-40), Divisio quarta. Molluscorum
acephalicorum reliquiae. I. Bivalvia, p. 65‒286; II. Brachiopoda, p. 287-303; III. (1841‒
122
44), Divisio quinta. Molluscorum gasteropodum reliquiae, p. 1-121: Düsseldorf, Arnz &
Co.
Goldring, W., 1923, The Devonian crinoids of the state of New York: New York State Museum,
Memoir 16, p. 1‒670.
Gorscak, E. and O‘Connor, P.M., 2016, Time-calibrated models support congruency
between Cretaceous continental rifting and titanosaurian evolutionary history:
Biology Letters, v. 12, p.20151047.
Guensburg, T.E., 2010, Alphacrinus new genus and origin of the disparid clade: Journal
of Paleontology, v. 84, p. 1209–1216.
Guensburg, T.E., 2012, Phylogenetic implications of the oldest crinoids: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 86, p. 455–461.
Guensburg, T.E., and Sprinkle, J., 2003, The oldest known crinoids (Early Ordovician,
Utah) and a new crinoid plate homology system: Bulletins of American
Paleontology, v. 364, 43 p.
Guensburg, T.E., and Sprinkle, J., 2009. Solving the mystery of crinoid ancestry: new fossil
evidence of arm origin and development: Journal of Paleontology, v. 83, p. 350‒364.
Guillerme, T. and Cooper, N., 2016, Effects of missing data on topological inference
using a Total Evidence approach: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, v. 94,
p.146–158.
Hall, J., 1852, Palaeontology of New York, v. 2, Containing descriptions of the organic remains
of the lower middle division of the New-York system. Natural History of New York,
123
New York: Boston, D. Appleton & Co. and Wiley & Putnam; Gould, Kendall, & Lincoln,
v. 6, 362 p.
Harmon, L.J., Losos, J.B., Davies, T.J., Gillespie R.G., Gittleman J.L., et al. 2010. Early
bursts of body size and shape evolution are rare in comparative data: Evolution, v.
64, p. 2385–96.
Harrison, L. B. and Larsson, H.C.E., 2015, Among-character rate variation distributions
in phylogenetic analysis of discrete morphologic characters: Systematic Biology, v.
64, p. 307–324.
Heath, T.A., and Moore, B.R., 2014, Bayesian inference of species divergence times, in
Chen, M-H., Kuo, L., and Lewis, P.O., Bayesian Phylogenetics: Methods,
Algorithms, and Applications: CRC Press, Oxfordshire, p. 277–318.
Heath, T.A., Hedtke, S.M., and Hillis, D.M., 2008, Taxon sampling and the accuracy of
phylogenetic analyses: Journal of Systematics and Evolution, v. 46, 239–257.
Heath, T.A., Huelsenbeck, J.P. and Stadler, T., 2014, The fossilized birth–death process
for coherent calibration of divergence-time estimates: Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, v. 111, p. E2957–E2966.
Heled, J., and Bouckaert, R.R., 2013, Looking for trees in the forest: summary tree from
posterior samples: BMC Evolutionary Biology, v. 13, 221.
Hemery, L.G., Roux, M., Ameziane, N., and Eleaume, M., 2013, High-resolution crinoid
phyletic inter-relationships derived from molecular data: Cahiers De Biologie
Marine, v. 54, p. 511–523.
124
Hopkins, M.J. and Smith, A.B., 2015, Dynamic evolutionary change in post-Paleozoic
echinoids and the importance of scale when interpreting changes in rates of
evolution: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 112, p.3758–
3763.
Huelsenbeck, J.P., Ronquist, F., and Teslenko, M., 2015, Command Reference for
MrBayes ver. 3.2.5: http://mrbayes.sourceforge.net/manual.php (accessed June
2016).
Huelsenbeck, J.P., Larget, B., Miller, R.E. and Ronquist, F., 2002, Potential applications
and pitfalls of Bayesian inference of phylogeny: Systematic Biology, v. 51),
p.673–688.
Hunt, G., 2008, Gradual or pulsed evolution: when should punctuational explanations be
preferred?: Paleobiology, v. 34, p.360–377.
Hunt, G., and Carrano, M.T, 2010, Models and methods for analyzing phenotypic
evolution in lineages and clades, in Alroy, J., and Hunt, G., (eds.), Short Course
on Quantitative Methods in Paleobiology. Paleontological Society, New Haven,
Connecticut, p. 245–269.
Hunt, G., and Slater, G., 2016, Integrating paleontological and phylogenetic approaches
to macroevolution: Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, v. 47.
P. 189–213.
Hunt, G., Bell, M.A., and Travis, M.P., 2008, Evolution toward a new adaptive optimum:
phenotypic evolution in a fossil stickleback lineage: Evolution, v. 62, p. 700–710.
125
Jablonski, D., 2008, Biotic interactions and macroevolution: extensions and mismatches across
scales and levels: Evolution, v. 62, 715–739.
Jaekel, O., 1902, Über verschiedene Wege phylogenetischer Entwicklung: 5th Verhandlungen
der International Zoological-Congress Berlin, 1901, p. 1058‒1117.
Jaekel, O., 1906, Der oberste Lenneschiefer zwischen Letmathe und Iserlohn in Schmidt, W.E.,
Der oberste Lenneschiefer zwischen Letmathe und Iserlohn: Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Geologischen Geselleschaft, v. 57, p. 544.
Kammer, T.W., 2001, Phenotypic bradytely in the Costalocrinus-Barycrinus lineage of
Paleozoic cladid crinoids: Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 383‒389.
Kammer, T.W. and Ausich, W.I., 1992, Advanced cladid crinoids from the middle
Mississippian of the east-central United States: primitive-grade calyces: Journal
of Paleontology, v. 66, p. 461‒480.
Kammer, T.W. and Ausich, W.I., 1996, Primitive cladid crinoids from Upper Osagean-
Lower Meramecian (Mississippian) rocks of east-central United States: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 70, p. 835‒866.
Kass, R.E., and Raftery, A.E., 1995, Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, v. 90, p. 773‒795.
Kier, P.M., 1952, Echinoderms of the Middle Devonian Silica Formation of Ohio: University of
Michigan Contributions from Museum of Paleontology, v. 10, p. 59‒81.
Ksepka, D.T., Parham, J.F., Allman, J.F., Benton, M.J., Carrano, M.T., Cranston, K.A.,
Donoghue, P.C., Head, J.J., Hermsen, E.J., Irmis, R.B. and Joyce, W.G., 2015. The Fossil
126
Calibration Database—A new resource for divergence dating: Systematic biology, v. 64,
p.853‒859.
Koenig, J.W., and Meyer, D.L., 1965, Two new crinoids from the Devonian of New York:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 39, p. 391‒397.
Lakner, C., van der Mark, P., Huelsenbeck, J. P., Larget, B., and Ronquist, F., 2008,
Efficiency of Markov chain Monte Carlo tree proposals in Bayesian phylogenetics:
Systematic Biology, v. 57, 86‒106.
Lane, N.G., 1970, Lower and Middle Ordovician crinoids from west-central Utah: Brigham
Young University Geology Studies, v. 17, p. 3‒17.
Lepage, T., Bryant, D., Philippe, H. and Lartillot, N., 2007, A general comparison of
relaxed molecular clock models: Molecular Biology and Evolution, v. 24, p.
2669‒2680.
Lee, M.S.Y., and Palci, A., 2015, Morphological phylogenetics in the genomic age: Current
Biology, v. 25, p. R922‒R929.
Lee, M.S., Cau, A., Naish, D. and Dyke, G.J., 2014, Morphological clocks in
paleontology, and a mid-Cretaceous origin of crown Aves: Systematic Biology, v.
63, p. 442‒449.
Lewis, P.O., 2001, A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete
morphological character data: Systematic biology, v. 50, p. 913‒925.
Lloyd, G.T., Wang, S.C. and Brusatte, S.L., 2012, Identifying heterogeneity in rates of
morphological evolution: discrete character change in the evolution of lungfish
(Sarcopterygii; Dipnoi): Evolution, v. 66, p.330‒348.
127
Maddison, D.R., 1991, The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most-
parsimonious trees: Systematic Zoology, v. 40, p. 315‒328.
Matzke, N.J., 2015, The evolution of antievolution policies after Kitzmiller v. Dover.
Science, p.aad4057.
Matzke, N.J. and Wright, A., 2016, Ground truthing tip-dating methods using fossil
Canidae reveals major differences in performance: Biology Letters, v. 12,
2010328, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2016.0328.
McIntosh, G.C. 1986, Phylogeny of the dicyclic inadunate order Cladida: Fourth North
American Paleontological Convention Abstracts. University of Colorado,
Boulder, p. A31.
McIntosh, G.C., 2001, Devonian cladid crinoids: Families Glossocrinidae Goldring, 1923, and
Rutkowskicrinidae new family: Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 783‒807.
Meek, F.B., 1871, On some new Silurian (Ordovician) crinoids and shells: American
Journal of Science, ser. 3, v. 1, p. 295‒299.
Meek, F.B., and Worthen, A.H., 1865, Descriptions of new species of crinoidea, etc. from the
Paleozoic rocks of Illinois and some of the adjoining states: Proceedings of the Academy
of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v. 17, p. 143‒155.
Miller, S.A., and Gurley, W.F.E., 1895, New and interesting species of Palaeozoic
fossils: Illinois State Museum, Bulletin 7, 89, p.
Moore, R.C., and Laudon, L.R., 1943, Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids:
Geological Society of America Special Paper, no. 46, 151 p.
128
Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds., 1978, Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T,
Echinodermata 2: Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press,
Lawrence, Kansas, 1027 p.
Müller, J., 1859, Bericht über die zur Bekanntmachung geeigneten Verhandlungen der
Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin: Monatsberichte
der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1858), p.
185-198.
O’Meara, B.C., Ané, C., Sanderson, M.J., Wainwright P. C., and Hansen, T., 2006,
Testing for Different Rates of Continuous Trait Evolution Using Likelihood:
Evolution, v. 60, p. 922–933.
O’Reilly, J.E., Puttick, M.N., Parry, L., Tanner, A.R., Tarver, J.E., Fleming, J., Pisani, D.,
and Donoghue, P.C.J., 2016, Bayesian methods outperform parsimony but at the
expense of precision in the estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological
data: Biology Letters, v. 12, 20160081, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0081
Paradis, E., Claude, J. and Strimmer, K., 2004, APE: analyses of phylogenetics and
evolution in R language: Bioinformatics, v. 20, p. 289–290.
Pennell, M.W., Harmon, L.J., Uyeda, J.C., 2014, Is there room for punctuated
equilibrium in macroevolution?: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 29, p. 23‒
32.
Phillips, J., 1839, Encrinites and zoophytes of the Silurian System, in Murchison, R.T.,
ed., The Silurian System, p. 670‒675.
129
Pollitt, J.R., Fortey, R.A. and Wills, M.A., 2005. Systematics of the trilobite families
Lichidae Hawle and Corda, 1847 and Lichakephalidae Tripp, 1957: The
application of Bayesian inference to morphological data: Journal of Systematic
Palaeontology, v. 3, p. 225‒241.
Pyron, R.A., 2011, Divergence Time Estimation Using Fossils as Terminal Taxa and the
Origins of Lissamphibia: Systematic Biology, v. 60, p. 466‒481.
Pyron, R.A., 2015, Post-molecular systematics and the future of phylogenetics: Trends in
ecology and evolution, v. 30, p. 384‒389.
Rabosky, D.L., 2009, Ecological limits and diversification rate: alternative paradigms to
explain the variation in species richness among clades and regions: Ecology
Letters, v. 12, p. 735–743.
Rabosky, D.L., and McCune, A.R., 2009, Reinventing species selection with molecular
phylogenies: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 25, p. 68–74.
Rannala, B., and Yang, Z., 1996, Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees:
a new method of phylogenetic inference: Journal of Molecular Evolution, v. 43, p.
304–311.
Rambaut, A., and Drummond, A.J., 2015, TreeAnnotator v2 2.1: MCMC ouput analysis.
Rambaut, A. 2014, Summarizing posterior trees: http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/summarizing-
posterior-trees (accessed June 2016).
Raup, D. M., 1985, Mathematical models of cladogenesis: Paleobiology, v. 11, p. 42–52.
130
Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S., 1973, Stochastic
models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity: Journal of Geology, v. 81, p.
525–542.
Robinson, D.F., and Foulds, L.R., 1981, Comparison of phylogenetic trees: Mathematical
Biosciences, v. 53, p. 131–147.
Ronquist, F., Klopfstein, S., Vilhelmsen, L., Schulmeister, S., Murray, D.L. and
Rasnitsyn, A.P., 2012, A total-evidence approach to dating with fossils, applied to
the early radiation of the Hymenoptera: Systematic Biology, v. 61, p. 973–999.
Rouse, G.W., Jermiin, L.S., Wilson, N.G., Eeckhaut, I., Lanterbecq, D., Oji, T., Young,
C.M., Browning, T., Cisternas, P., Helgen, L.E., Stuckey, M., and Messing, C.G.,
2013, Fixed, free, and fixed: the fickle phylogeny of extant Crinoidea
(Echinodermata) and their Permian–Triassic origin: Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution v. 66, p. 161–181.
Salter, J.W., 1873, A catalogue of the collection of Cambrian and Silurian fossils
contained in the geological museum of the University of Cambridge: Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 204 p.
Sepkoski, J. J., Jr. 1981, A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil
record: Paleobiology, v. 7, p. 36–53.
Simpson, G.G., 1944, Tempo and Mode in Evolution: Columbia University Press, New
York.
131
Simms, M.J., 1988, The phylogeny of post-Palaeozoic crinoids, in Burke, R. D., P. V.
Mladenov, P. Lambert, and R. L. Parsley, eds, Echinoderm Biology: Balkema,
Rotterdam, p. 97–102.
Simms, M.J., and Sevastopulo, G.D., 1993, The origin of articulate crinoids:
Palaeontology, v. 36, p. 91–109.
Schlotheim, E.F. von, 1820, Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte durch
die Beschreibung seiner Sammlung versteinerter und fossiler Überreste des Thier-
und Pflanzenreichs der Vorwelt erläutert: Gotha, Beckersche Buchhandlung, p.
437 p.
Schultze, L., 1867, Monographie der Echinodermen des Eifler Kalkes: Denkschriften der
Kaiserlich Akademie der Wissenschaften Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen
Classe, Wien, v. 26, no. 2, p. 113‒230.
Sevastopulo, G.D., and Lane, N.G., 1988, Ontogeny and phylogeny of disparid crinoids,
in Paul, C.R.C., and Smith, A.B., eds, Echinoderm phylogeny and evolutionary
biology: Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 245–253.
Slater, G.J., 2013, Phylogenetic evidence for a shift in the mode of mammalian body size
evolution at the Cretaceous-Palaeogene boundary: Methods in Ecology and
Evolution, v. 4, p. 734‒744.
Slater, G.J., 2015, Iterative adaptive radiations of fossil canids show no evidence for
diversity-dependent trait evolution: Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, v. 112, p. 4897‒4902.
132
Slater, G.J., and Harmon, L.J., 2013, Unifying fossils and phylogenies for comparative
analyses of diversification and trait evolution: Methods in Ecology and Evolution,
v. 4, p. 699‒702.
Smith, A.B., 1984, Classification of the Echinodermata: Palaeontology, v. 27, p. 431‒
459.
Smith, A.B., 1994, Systematics and the Fossil Record: Documenting Evolutionary
Patterns: Blackwell Science, Oxford, 223 p.
Smith, A.B., Lafay, B., and Christen, R., 1992, Comparative variation of morphological
and molecular evolution through geologic time: 28S ribosomal RNAversus
morphology in echinoids: Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, v.
338, p. 365‒382.
Snively, E., Russell, A.P. and Powell, G.L., 2004, Evolutionary morphology of the
coelurosaurian arctometatarsus: descriptive, morphometric and phylogenetic
approaches: Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, v. 142, p. 525‒553.
Spencer, M.R., and Wilberg, E.W., 2013. Efficacy or convenience? Model‐based
approaches to phylogeny estimation using morphological data: Cladistics, v. 29,
p. 663‒671.
Springer, F., 1911, On a Trenton echinoderm fauna: Canada Department Mines Memoir
no. 15-P, 70 p.
Springer, F., 1920, The Crinoidea Flexibilia: Smithsonian Institution Publication no.
2501, 486 p.
133
Sprinkle, J., 1982, Hybocrinus, in Sprinkle, J., ed., Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide
Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma: The University of Kansas Paleontological
Contributions, Monograph 1, p. 119–128.
Sprinkle, J., and Kolata, D. R., 1982, "Rhomb-bearing" camerate, in Sprinkle, J., ed.,
Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of
Oklahoma: University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1, p.
206‒211.
Sprinkle, J., and Moore, 1978, Hybocrinida, in Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds:
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2: Geological Society
of America and University of Kansas Press, Kansas, p. T564–T574.
Stadler, T., 2010, Sampling-through-time in birth-death trees: Journal of Theoretical
Biology, vol. 267, p. 396‒404.
Stadler, T. and Yang, Z., 2013, Dating phylogenies with sequentially sampled tips:
Systematic Biology, v. 62, p. 674‒688.
Stadler, T., Kouyos, R., Wyl, V. von, Yerly, S., Böni, J., Bürgisser, P., Klimkait, T., Joos,
B., Rieder, P., Xie, D., Günthard, H. F., Drummond, A. J., Bonhoeffer, S., the Swiss
HIV Cohort Study, 2012, Estimating the basic reproductive number from viral
sequence data: Molecular Biology and Evolution, v. 29, p. 347‒357.
Summers, M.M., Messing, C.G., and Rouse, G.W., 2014, Phylogeny of Comatulidae
(Echinodermata: Crinoidea: Comatulida): a new classification and an assessment
of morphological characters for crinoid taxonomy: Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution, v. 80, p. 319–339. 134
Swofford, D.L., 2002, PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other
Methods): Version 4. Massachusetts, Sinauer Associates.
Swofford, D.L., Olsen, G.J., Waddell, P.J., and Hillis, D.M., 1996, Phylogenetic
inference, in Hillis, D.M., Moritz, C., and Mable, B.K., ed., Molecular Systematics
(second edition), Massachusetts, Sinauer, p. 407‒514.
Ubaghs, G., 1969, Aethocrinus moorei Ubaghs N. Gen., N. sp., le Plus ancien Crinoide
dicyclique Connu: University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 38, p. 1‒
25.
Ulrich, E.O., 1925, The lead, zinc, and fluorspar deposits of Western Kentucky; Chapter
2, Stratigraphic geology: U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 36, p. 22‒
71.
Ubaghs, G., 1978, Origin of crinoids, in Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds, Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata, v. 2 (2): Geological Society of
America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, p. T275–T281.
Wagner, PJ. 1998, A likelihood approach for evaluating estimates of phylogenetic
relationships among fossil taxa: Paleobiology, v. 24, p. 430‒49.
Wagner, P.J., 1999, The utility of fossil data in phylogenetic analyses: a likelihood
example using Ordovician-Silurian species of the Lophospiridae (Gastropoda:
Murchisoniina): American Malacological Bulletin, v. 15, p. 1‒32.
Wagner, P.J., 2000a, Phylogenetic analyses and the fossil record: tests and inferences,
hypotheses, and models: Paleobiology, v. 26, p. 341‒371.
135
Wagner, P.J., 2000b, The quality of the fossil record and the accuracy of phylogenetic
inferences about sampling and diversity: Systematic Biology, v. 49, p. 65‒86.
Wagner, P.J., 2000c, Exhaustion of morphologic character states among fossil taxa:
Evolution, v. 54, 365‒386.
Wagner, P.J., 2012, Modelling rate distributions using character compatibility:
implications for morphological evolution among fossil invertebrates: Biology
Letters, v. 8, p. 143‒146.
Wagner, P.J. and Marcot, J.D., 2010, Probabilistic phylogenetic inference in the fossil
record: current and future applications, in Alroy, J. and Hunt, G., eds.,
Quantitative Methods in Paleobiology. The Paleontological Society Papers, v. 16,
p. 189‒211
Wagner, P.J. and Marcot, J.D., 2013, Modelling distributions of fossil sampling rates
over time, space and taxa: assessment and implications for macroevolutionary
studies: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 4, p.703‒713.
Walcott, C.D., 1884. Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Trenton Group of
New York: New York State Museum of Natural History, Annual Report, v. 35, p.
207‒214.
Webster, G.D., 2003, Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, coronates, and
hemistreptocrinoids: Geological Society of America Special Paper 363.
Webster, G.D., and Jell, P.A., 1999, New Permian crinoids from Australia: Memoirs of
the Queensland Museum, v. 33, p. 349–359.
136
Webster, G.D. and Maples, C.G., 2006, Cladid crinoid (Echinodermata) anal conditions:
a terminology problem and proposed solution: Palaeontology, v. 49, p. 187–212.
Webster, G.D. and Maples, C.G., 2008, Cladid crinoid radial facets, brachials, and arm
appendages: a terminology solution for studies of lineage, classification, and
paleoenvironment, in Ausich, W.I., and Webster, G.D., eds., Echinoderm
Paleobiology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, p.197–226.
Webster, G.D., Maples, C.G., Mawson, R., and Dastanpour, M., 2003, A cladid-dominated Early
Mississippian crinoid and conodont fauna from Kerman Province, Iran and revision of
the glossocrinids and rhenocrinids: Journal of Paleontology, Memoir 60, v. 77, suppl. to
no. 3, 35 p.
Weller, S. and Davidson, A.D., 1896. Petalocrinus mirabilis (n. sp.) and a new American
fauna: Journal of Geology, v. 4, p. 166‒173.
Wetherby, A.G., 1880, Remarks on the Trenton Limestone of Kentucky, with descriptions of
new fossils from that formation and the Kaskaskia (Chester) Group, Sub-carboniferous:
Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, v. 3, p. 144‒160.
Wheeler, W.C., 2012, Systematics: a course of lectures: Chichester, John Wiley and
Sons. 426 p.
Wheeler, W.C., and Pickett, K.M., 2007, Topology-Bayes versus Clade-Bayes in
phylogenetic analysis: Molecular Biology and Evolution, v. 25, p. 447‒453.
Wright, A.M., and Hillis, D.M., 2014, Bayesian analysis using a simple likelihood model
outperforms parsimony for estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological
data: PloS One, v. 9, e109210.
137
Wright, D. F., 2015, Fossils, homology, and “Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny”: a
reassessment of primary posterior plate homologies among fossil and living
crinoids with insights from developmental biology: Paleobiology, v. 41, p. 570‒
591.
Wright, D.F., and Ausich, 2015, W.I., From the stem to the crown: phylogeny and
diversification of pan-cladid crinoids, in Zamora, S. and Rábano, I., eds., Progress
in Echinoderm Paleobiology: Cuadernos del museo Geominero, 19, Instituto
Geológico y Minero de España, p. 199–202.
Wright, D. F. and Stigall, A. L., 2013, Phylogenetic revision of the Late Ordovician
orthid brachiopod genera Plaesiomys and Hebertella from Laurentia: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 87, p. 1107‒1128.
Wright, D.F., Ausich, W.I., Cole, S.R., Peter, M.E., Rhenburg, E.C., in press,
Phylogenetic taxonomy and classification of the Crinoidea: Journal of
Paleontology.
Xie, W., Lewis, P.O., Fan, Y., Kuo, L., and Chen, M.–H., 2010, Improving marginal
likelihood estimation for Bayesian phylogenetic model selection: Systematic Biology,
v. 60, p. 150‒160.
Yang, Z., 2014, Molecular Evolution: a Statistical Approach: Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 492 p.
Zhang, C., Stadler, T., Klopfstein, S., Heath, T.A. and Ronquist, F., 2016, Total-Evidence
Dating under the Fossilized Birth–Death Process: Systematic Biology, v. 65, p.,
228‒249.
138
Table 3.1 Species sampled for phylogenetic analysis.
139
Species Author Aethocrinus moorei Ubaghs, 1969 Alphacrinus mansfieldi Guensburg, 2010 Webster, Maples, Mawson, and Dastanpour, Amabilicrinus iranensis 2003 Apektocrinus ubaghsi Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2009 Botryocrinus ramosissimus Angelin, 1878 Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857 Codiacrinus granulatus Schultze, 1867 Colpodecrinus quadrifidus Sprinkle and Kolata, 1982 Corematocrinus plumosus Goldring, 1923 Crotalocrinites verucosus (Schlotheim, 1820) Cupulocrinus humilis (Billings, 1857) Dendrocrinus longidactylus Hall, 1852 Euspirocrinus spiralis Angelin, 1878 Eustenocrinus springeri Ulrich, 1925 Gasterocoma antiqua Goldfuss, 1839 Glossocrinus naplesensis Goldring, 1923 Heviacrinus melendezi Gil Cid, Alonso, and Pobes, 1996 Homalocrinus nanus (Salter, 1873) Hybocrinus conicus Billings, 1857 Hybocystites problematicus Wetherby, 1880 Ibexocrinus lepton Lane, 1970 Icthyocrinus laevis Conrad, 1842 Iocrinus subcrassus (Meek and Worthen, 1865) Lecanocrinus macropetalus Hall, 1852 Lecythocrinus eifelianus Müller, 1859 Manicrinus hybocriniformis Frest and Strimple, 1978 Mastigocrinus arboreus (Salter, 1873) Merocrinus typus Walcott, 1884 Metabolocrinus rossicus Jaekel, 1902 Ottawacrinus typus Billings, 1887 Petalocrinus mirabilis Weller and Davidson, 1896 Plicodendrocrinus casei Meek, 1871 Porocrinus conicus Billings, 1857 Proctothylacocrinus longus Kier, 1952
Continued
140
Table 3.1 continued
Protaxocrinus ovalis (Angelin, 1878) Rhenocrinus ramoisissimus Jaekel, 1906 Rutkowskicrinus patriciae McIntosh, 2001 Sagenocrinites expansus (Phillips, 1839) Sphaerocrinus geometricus (Goldfuss, 1831) Streblocrinus brachiatus Koenig and Meyer, 1965 Thalamocrinus ovatus Miller and Gurley, 1895 Thenarocrinus callipygus Bather, 1890
141
Figure 3.1 Illustration of the fossilized birth‒death process. (1) A full realization of the FBD process from time t in the past to the end of the process. Diversification produces a tree with branching and extinction events and random sampling of nodes.
Sampling events are indicated by dots. (2) A “reconstructed” phylogenetic produced by pruning all of the unsampled lineages in 1.1. Thus, only the observed portion of samples participating in the macroevolutionary process is observed. Note that some sampled nodes represent ancestors.
142
Fig. 3.1
143
Figure 3.2 Parsimony-based estimate of rate variation among characters. This distribution suggests that many characters evolve slowly, whereas a small number of characters evolve at much higher rates.
144
Fig. 3.2
145
Figure 3.3 Testing statistical associations between the amount of morphologic
evolution inferred from an undated analysis and divergence times estimated under a
relaxed morphologic-clock model: (1) node age in millions of years and anagenesis
(measured as the total root-to-tip distance in parsimony steps from an undated analysis),
(2) phylogenetic independent contrasts between branch durations (from time-scaled
analysis) and anagenesis (from an undated analysis). Both regressions are statistically
significant.
146
Fig. 3.3
147
Figure 3.4 Maximum Clade Credibility tree of early to middle Paleozoic crinoids.
Posterior probabilities (> 0.50) are located next to nodes and expressed in percent, blue node bars represent the 95% highest posterior density age estimates, thick black bars represent genus-level stratigraphic ranges. Note the inclusion of stratigraphic ranges give the appearance of sister taxon relationships where zero-length branches were sampled
(e.g., Cupulocrinus). The Cladida (sensu Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993) are sister to the
Disparida. Crinoid taxa depicted represent the major clades discussed in the text: (from top to bottom), the disparid Eustenocrinus springeri Ulrich, 1925, redrawn from Ubaghs
(1978); representative porocrinoid and hybocrinid (see text), Hybocrinus conicus
Billings, 1857, redrawn from Sprinkle and Moore (1978); the flexible Protaxocrinus laevis (Billings, 1857), redrawn from Springer (1911); representative eucladid
Dictenocrinus, redrawn from Bather (1900).
148
Fig. 3.4
149
Chapter 4: Phylogenetic taxonomy and classification of the Crinoidea (Echinodermata)
Abstract.—A major goal of biological classification is to provide a system that conveys phylogenetic relationships while facilitating lucid communication among researchers. Phylogenetic taxonomy is a useful framework for defining clades and delineating their taxonomic content based on well-supported phylogenetic hypotheses.
The Crinoidea (Echinodermata) is one of the five major clades of living echinoderms and has a rich fossil record spanning nearly a half billion years. Using principles of phylogenetic taxonomy and recent phylogenetic analyses, we provide the first phylogeny- based definition for the Clade Crinoidea and its constituent subclades. A series of stem- and node-based definitions are provided for all major taxa traditionally recognized within the Crinoidea, including the Camerata, Disparida, Hybocrinida, Cladida, Flexibilia, and the Articulata. Following recommendations proposed in recent revisions, we recognize several new clades, including the Eucamerata Cole (in press), Porocrinoidea Wright (in press), and Eucladida Wright (in press). In addition, recent phylogenetic analyses support the resurrection of two names previously abandoned in the crinoid taxonomic literature: the Pentacrinoidea Jaekel, 1918 and Inadunata Wachsmuth and Springer, 1885. Lastly, a phylogenetic perspective is used to inform a comprehensive revision of the traditional rank-based classification. Although an attempt was made to minimize changes to the rank-based system, numerous changes were necessary in some cases to achieve 150
monophyly. These phylogeny-based classifications provide a useful template for
paleontologists, biologists, and non-experts alike to better explore evolutionary patterns and processes with fossil and living crinoids.
Introduction
Crinoids are a diverse, long-lived clade of echinoderms with a fossil record spanning
nearly half a billion years and are represented by more than 600 species living in marine
ecosystems today (Hess et al., 1999). The geologic history of crinoids is revealed through
a highly complete, well-sampled fossil record (Foote and Raup, 1996; Foote and
Sepkoski, 1999) displaying a complex pageant of evolutionary radiation, extinction,
ecologic innovation, and morphologic diversification (Ausich and Bottjer, 1982; Ausich
et al., 1994; Foote, 1999; Peters and Ausich, 2008; Deline and Ausich, 2011; Gorzelak et
al, 2015). The spectacular fossil record of crinoids is greatly enriched and complemented
by detailed biologic studies on living species. These studies facilitate opportunities to
synthesize information from fossil and extant forms. For example, comparative studies
between fossil and living crinoid species have provided insight into species ecology and
niche dynamics (Meyer and Macurda, 1977; Ausich, 1980; Roux, 1987; Kitazawa et al.,
2007; Baumiller 2008), established developmental bases for morphologic homologies
(Shibata et al., 2008; Wright, 2015a), and informed phylogenetic hypotheses (Simms and
151
Sevastopulo, 1993; Rouse et al., 2013). Thus, crinoids form a data-rich model system for exploring major questions in the history of life.
Given their general significance and broad scientific utility across multiple disciplines of inquiry, it is paramount that the biological classifications of crinoids reflect their evolutionary heritage. Numerous emendations and informal suggestions for major taxonomic revisions have been opined over the last few decades (e.g., Kelly, 1986;
Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993; Ausich, 1998a, 1998b; Webster and Jell, 1999; Hess and
Messing, 2011), but the most recent comprehensive revision to crinoid classification is the 1978 Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Moore and Teichert, 1978). Since publication of the Treatise, the value of revising rank-based systematic classifications to be consistent with phylogenetic hypotheses and/or the explicit use of phylogenetic taxonomy (sensu de Quieroz and Gauthier, 1990; Sereno, 1999, 2005) has become increasingly common in paleontology (e.g., Smith, 1984, 1994; Holtz, 1996, 1998;
Sereno, 1997; Padian et al., 1999; Brochu and Sumrall, 2001; Carlson, 2001; Carlson and
Leighton, 2001; Brochu, 2003; Forey et al., 2004; Sereno et al., 2005; Butler et al., 2008;
Kelley et al., 2013). We agree with these authors that all named taxa in a biological classification system should ideally represent clades (i.e., monophyletic groups). The development of phylogeny-based classifications is not without difficulties or criticism
(e.g., Benton, 2000; 2007). However, we advocate that recent advances in understanding the phylogenetic relationships of major crinoid lineages make the biological classification of the Crinoidea ripe for revision.
152
A great strength of so-called “phylogenetic taxonomy” is its potential for
increasing nomenclatural stability (de Quieroz and Gauthier, 1994; Brochu and Sumrall,
2001). Under a phylogeny-based system of classification, groups of taxa are organized by
their patterns of shared common ancestry rather than diagnostic traits. This is a
particularly useful aspect of phylogenetic taxonomy: if named evolutionary units are
defined by their history of common ancestry, they do not change if new information
comes to light that necessitates modification of taxonomic diagnoses. For example, new
fossil discoveries and/or more nuanced understandings of phylogenetic relationships may
alter the distribution of synapomorphies among members of a clade but do not alter the
definition of the clade. Moreover, by naming taxa based on cladogram topologies,
phylogenetic taxonomy can provide a precise definition for groups previously difficult to
diagnose by a unique combination of synapomorphies, such as the Articulata (Simms,
1988; Webster and Jell, 1999; Rouse et al., 2013). To avoid potential instability in
taxonomic nomenclature and/or the proliferation of clade names, we advocate that major
changes in crinoid systematics should (1) be based on well-supported phylogenetic
hypotheses inferred using rigorous and repeatable quantitative techniques and (2) employ
widely used names and/or names with historical precedence if available.
In this paper, we propose a series of stem-based and node-based clade definitions to help standardize nomenclature for crinoid higher taxa. The clade definitions proposed herein are informed by a series of recent phylogenetic analyses (Ausich et al., 2015; Cole, in press; Wright, in press) and represent the first attempt to classify crinoids using the principles of phylogenetic taxonomy (de Queiroz and Gauthier 1992, 1994).
153
Although Linnaean classifications lack rigorous criteria for assigning ranks, they
can nevertheless provide useful (if coarse) reflections of phylogenetic relatedness and
divergence among taxa, particularly in paleontology (Smith, 1984; Potter and
Freudenstein, 2005; Jablonski and Finarelli, 2009; Soul and Friedman, 2015). Given the
widespread use of rank-based classifications among invertebrate paleontologists in both
alpha taxonomy and paleobiological studies, it is prudent to present a phylogenetically
informed revision of the rank-based classification of the Crinoidea. These revisions
modify the existing Linnaean classification of crinoids to better represent the set of
nested hierarchies implied by phylogenetic trees (Ausich et al., 2015; Cole, in press;
Wright, in press).
In their review of progress made in crinoid research during the 20th century,
Ausich and Kammer (2001, p. 1167) stated the “immediate challenge for the [21st
century] study of crinoids is to establish a phylogenetic classification for the entire class.”
It is our hope that the dual classification systems presented herein will provide a
foundation for future studies employing phylogenetic nomenclature in crinoid research
and also promote the use of an improved classification system among researchers who
choose to work with the Linnaean system.
154
The dredge and the hammer: a brief history of crinoid classification
“The whole history of the attempts to classify the Crinoidea shows…the gradual emancipation from the older habit of lumping forms together because they are alike in structure without considering how the likeness arose” –F.A. Bather (1898 , p. 339)
Formal scientific description and classification of crinoids began in 1821 when
J.S. Miller recognized fossilized stalked echinoderms from the “environs of Bristol” as a distinct group. Although he did not include comatulids in his original conception of the
Crinoidea, he anticipated that they were crinoids: “The combination of these results with those from the Crinoidea made me anxious to examine the Comatulae…an animal which would be defined with sufficient precision as a Pentacrinus destitute of the column
(Miller, 1821, p. 127).” Further, he judged Marsupites ornatus Miller, 1821 (an unstalked crinoid of Cretaceous age) to be the “link” between comatulids and his Crinoidea (Miller,
1821, p. 139). Extant stalked crinoids were unknown until the mid- to late 1860s, when their discovery during oceanic dredging expeditions provided fodder for early debates regarding the efficacy of Darwin’s (1859) then recently proposed theory of natural selection (see Alaniz, 2014; Etter and Hess, 2015). Thus, the original description, definition, and diagnosis of the Crinoidea relied entirely on fossil remains. Despite the morphological diversity and deep phylogenetic relationships among groups of extant species, the inclusion of living crinoids with fossil forms has not fundamentally altered
Miller’s (1821) concept. Following subsequent inclusion of the comatulids and extant
155
stalked crinoids with fossil forms, the Crinoidea has withstood nearly 200 years of
scrutiny as a distinct group within the Echinodermata.
In contrast with their long-term recognition as a clade, the classification of taxa
within the Crinoidea has been widely debated since the 19th century (Müller, 1841;
Angelin, 1878; Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897; Bather, 1899; Springer, 1913; Jaekel,
1918). With few exceptions, debates on crinoid classification have primarily been based on disagreements over phylogenetic affinities among taxa rather than systematic practices among researchers (see Bather, 1899 for a counter example). The intensity of early debates over crinoid classification is best epitomized by the frequent yet acrimonious exchanges between Wachsmuth and Springer (e.g., 1885, 1891, 1897) and Bather (e.g.,
1898, 1899, 1900). Attempts to resolve these debates among 19th century systematists
have largely shaped the last ~70 years of crinoid research (Ausich and Kammer, 2001).
In their seminal work Evolution and Classification of Paleozoic Crinoids, Moore
and Laudon (1943) presented a classification that incorporated aspects of both Frank
Springer’s and Francis Bather’s ideas (see discussion in Ausich and Kammer, 2001).
With few modifications, Moore and Laudon’s (1943) publication formed the basis for the
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Moore and Teichert, 1978). Following
publication of the 1978 Treatise, the classification of crinoids entered a protracted yet
frail era of nomenclatural stability. Although few authors have advanced major revisions
or comprehensive modifications, many have voiced contention with the Treatise
classification (Kelly, 1982, 1986; Kolata, 1982; McIntosh, 1984, 1986, 2001; Ausich,
1986, 1998a, 1998b; Donovan, 1988; Simms, 1988; Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993;
156
Brower, 1995; Webster and Jell, 1999; Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003; Hess and Messing,
2011; Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015). With the exception of Simms and
Sevastopulo (1993), all of these studies have basically been readjustments of the Moore
and Teichert (1978) classification to accommodate rank changes, the addition of new
groups, and delineation of clade membership defined by phylogenetic studies of extant
species.
The study of extant crinoids remains in the shadow of A. H. Clark, who published
more than 100 publications on their morphology, taxonomy, and classification during the
early to middle 20th century (e.g., A. H. Clark, 1915, 1921; A. H. Clark and A. M. Clark,
1967). The advent and application of molecular phylogenetic methods to crinoid
phylogeny has recently thrown light on relationships among extant species (Cohen et al.,
2004; Hemery et al., 2013; Rouse et al., 2013; Summers et al., 2014). However, these analyses also point toward the need for extensive taxonomic revisions and an improved understanding of morphologic traits among living species (Messing and White, 2001;
David et al., 2006; Roux et al., 2013; Summers et al., 2014; Hays et al., 2015).
Remarkably, there has been little previous work to combine molecular phylogenetic studies of extant crinoids with paleontologic data to assemble a more complete picture of post-Paleozoic crinoid evolutionary history. Efforts to integrate these rich sources of information present both challenges and opportunities for future researchers to resolve patterns and processes shaping the crinoid tree of life (Lee and Palci, 2015; Pyron, 2015).
157
Crinoid origins and classification
Extant echinoderms include the Crinoidea, Echinoidea, Ophiuroidea, Asteroidea, and the
Holothuroidea, with the latter four comprising the Eleutherozoa. Although it has been
long established that crinoids form the sister group to the Eleutherozoa, the relationships
among many fossil and extant echinoderm groups are controversial (Paul and Smith,
1984; Sumrall 1997; David et al., 2000; Smith, 2005; Pisani et al., 2012; Telford et al.,
2014; Zamora and Rahman, 2014; Feuda and Smith, 2015; Reich et al., 2015). The phylogenetic position of crinoids within the Echinodermata was contested throughout the late 20th century, with a focal question whether the Pelmatozoa (i.e., stalked echinoderms including blastozoans and crinoids) and/or the Blastozoa are monophyletic groups or a
“grade” of body plan organization. This is a fundamental question not only for
understanding the origin of crinoids but also for resolving phylogenetic relationships
among clades within the Echinodermata. One hypothesis of crinoid origins postulates that
crinoids and blastozoan echinoderms independently evolved pelmatozoan-grade body
plans (e.g., Sprinkle, 1973, 1976; Mooi and David, 1998, 2008; Guensburg and Sprinkle,
2003; David et al., 2000; Guensburg, 2012). This hypothesis proposes that blastozoans
and crinoids each comprise distinct monophyletic groups. In contrast, an alternative
hypothesis postulates that blastozoans and crinoids are members of an inclusive
pelmatozoan clade, with crinoids nested within a paraphyletic Blastozoa (Leuckart, 1848;
Bather, 1899, 1900; Smith, 1984; Paul and Smith, 1984; Paul, 1988; Smith and Jell,
1990; Smith, 1994; Sumrall, 1997; Ausich, 1998a, 1998b; Clausen et al., 2009; Zamora
158
and Smith, 2011; Kammer et al., 2013; O’Malley, 2016). In this hypothesis, the
blastozoan body plan represents a grade of organization within the more inclusive
Pelmatozoa, a clade comprising all blastozoan grade echinoderms and crinoids (including
the crown group). Although the inclusive group of nominal ‘blastozoan’ taxa is not
monophyletic, there are undoubtedly assemblages of ‘blastozoan’ taxa that do correspond
to monophyletic groups (Smith, 1984; Sumrall and Wray, 2007; Zamora and Smith,
2011; Sumrall and Waters, 2012; Zamora et al., 2016).
Important to this debate are the differences among researchers with respect to their underlying taxonomic principles and systematic practices (see Smith, 1988). Those who support the monophyly of the Blastozoa and Crinoidea embrace systematic practices that emphasize differences (rather than similarities) among taxa, recognize plesiomorphic traits as taxonomically informative characters, exclude character data from consideration of relationships because of a priori beliefs regarding the distribution of homoplastic traits, and conflate sister group hypotheses with ancestor-descendant relationships (e.g.,
Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003, 2007; Guensburg, 2012; Guensburg et al., 2016). These practices differ considerably from those who infer the Pelmatozoa as a clade. These workers tend to emphasize similarities (rather than differences) among taxa, minimize a priori assumptions regarding hypotheses of character evolution, and utilize the principles of phylogenetic systematics to rigorously test whether apparent similarities in form reflect synapomorphies or homoplasy (e.g., Sumrall and Waters, 2012; Sumrall, 2014;
Ausich et al., 2015). Given the recent advances in homology assessment among pentaradiate echinoderms (e.g., Sumrall, 1997, 2008, 2010, 2014; Sumrall and Waters,
159
2012; Kammer et al., 2013) and computational phylogenetic analyses of echinoderm taxa
based on a large ensemble of characters, it is becoming increasingly clear that a
blastozoan-grade taxon likely forms the closest immediate outgroup to the Crinoidea
(Kammer et al., 2013; Sumrall, 2014). In the future, new developments in phylogenetic research along with a continued search for the oldest “crinoid” fossils will continue to play a role in uncovering the sequence of morphologic transitions behind the assembly of the crinoid body plan.
Despite desultory disagreements regarding crinoid origins (Sprinkle, 1973;
Ubaghs, 1978; Donovan, 1988; Ausich, 1998a, 1998b; Ausich and Babcock, 1998;
Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2007, 2009; Kammer et al., 2013; Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015; Guensburg et al., 2016), there is nevertheless considerable agreement among workers regarding the pattern of branching relationships within the crinoid ingroup. For example, the recent phylogenetic analyses of Guensburg (2012) and Ausich et al. (2015) reveal highly congruent patterns of branching relationships among crinoid higher taxa despite the use of alternative outgroups, different datasets, and alternative interpretations of homologous morphologic characters. We surmise this growing consensus stems from the improved taxonomic sampling of the oldest known crinoids (Guensburg and Sprinkle,
2003, 2009; Guensburg, 2010) and implementation of more rigorous quantitative approaches to testing phylogenetic hypotheses (Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015;
Cole, in press; Wright, in press).
We conclude that congruence observed among tree topologies obtained from researchers with different perspectives indicates strong support for these patterns.
160
Although questions surrounding crinoid origins remain, this debate is moot with respect
to the phylogeny-based definitions and classification presented herein and ultimately has no bearing on the focus and conclusions of this paper.
Toward a phylogenetic classification of the Crinoidea
From the perspective of their geologic history, crinoids are a bottom-heavy clade (Gould
et al., 1987). In contrast to the tremendously diverse assemblage of stem lineages,
comparatively few species are encompassed within the crown group (Fig. 4.1). Because
of the enormous diversity of the stem group relative to the crown group, fossil crinoids
have received much systematic attention compared to their extant representatives (but see
A. H. Clark, 1915; David et al., 2006; Hess and Messing, 2011; Rouse et al., 2013;
Hemery et al., 2013). Aside from a number of smaller studies examining relationships
among species of middle to late Paleozoic genera (e.g., Ausich and Kammer, 2008; Gahn
and Kammer, 2002; Kammer and Gahn, 2003), most investigations of crinoid phylogeny
have focused on discerning relationships among Ordovician taxa (Brower, 1995; Ausich
1998b; Guensburg 2012; Ausich et al. 2015; Cole, in press). The Ordovician Period
represents a key interval in crinoid evolution because species belonging to various groups
of traditionally named taxa first appear in rocks of the Lower Ordovician (Tremadocian)
(Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003, 2009; Guensburg, 2010) and the majority of well-studied
groups had originated prior to its close.
161
The divergence between camerate and non-camerate lineages forms a fundamental, early split in the history of crinoid evolution (Jaekel, 1918; Donovan, 1988;
Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015; Cole in press; Wright, in press) (Fig. 1). For example, in the recent phylogeny of Ausich et al. (2015), taxa belonging to the Camerata
(sensu Moore and Teichert, 1978) form the sister clade to all other crinoids, including the protocrinoids (Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003). Disparids were recovered as sister to a clade comprised of most ‘cladid’ taxa and hybocrinids were recovered as sister to a group of ‘cyathocrine’ cladids (sensu Moore and Teichert, 1978). A similar pattern was recovered by Guensburg (2012, fig. 2).
Building on these studies, Cole (in press) further assessed the basal split between camerates and non-camerates and tested the taxonomic status of the Monobathrida and
Diplobathrida (Fig. 1). Wright’s (in press) analysis of relationships among non-camerate crinoids offers a more nuanced perspective of this portion of the crinoid tree than previously recovered. Notably, many so-called Ordovician “clades” of Guensburg (2012) and Ausich et al. (2015) do not retain their status of monophyly when post-Ordovician taxa are considered (Wright, in press).
Recent molecular phylogenetic studies indicate broad relationships among major clades of extant crinoids are also reaching a consensus, with the Isocrinida representing the sister clade to all other extant crinoids (Rouse et al., 2013, 2015). Interestingly, divergence time estimation based on relaxed molecular clock models suggests the split between isocrinids and other extant groups took place some 231–252 million years ago
162
(Rouse et al., 2013). Thus, molecular phylogenetic analyses and paleontological evidence
are in general agreement regarding an ancient origin of the crinoid crown group.
A summary tree based on results presented in Ausich et al. (2015), Cole (in
press), Wright (in press), and Rouse et al. (2013) is depicted in the form of a simplified
cladogram in Figure 4.2. This cladogram is annotated with the clade names we propose
below. Terminal taxa in the cladogram were carefully chosen to maximize stability in
phylogenetic nomenclature (Table 3.1). Sereno (2005) listed numerous criteria for
choosing the taxon specifiers in clade definitions. These recommendations include choosing specifiers that are nested rather than basal (if possible), represented by well-
known or readily available material, and using multiple specifiers where necessary to
accommodate phylogenetic uncertainty and/or alternative hypotheses. We have carefully chosen our clade definitions to not hinge on labile phylogenetic hypotheses or specific interpretations of unusual and/or problematic taxa.
Classes of clade definitions used in phylogenetic taxonomy and their graphical representations used herein closely follow Sereno (1999, 2005). Node-based clade definitions circumscribe the most recent common ancestor of at least two taxa and all of its descendants. Thus, node-based definitions form the least inclusive clade containing a minimum of two specifiers. In contrast, stem-based definitions circumscribe the most inclusive clade containing at least one internal specifier. In both cases, additional precision is obtained by identifying external specifiers falling outside the clade (i.e., the outgroup). For example, a stem-based definition for hypothetical Clade A with two internal and one external taxon specifiers can be stated as “all species sharing a more
163
recent common ancestor with species X and Y than Z”, where X and Y are internal taxon specifiers and Z is an external specifier. In other words, Clade A is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing X and Y but not Z. Note the presence of one species as an external specifier effectively eliminates the entire clade to which it belongs. By definition, a clade cannot contain an ancestor of its sister group.
In phylogenetic taxonomy, clade membership is not determined by the presence or absence of a “key” morphologic feature unless that apomorphy (or set of apomorphies) is listed in the definition as a qualifying clause (Sereno, 2005). We avoid apomorphic qualifiers in our definitions for several reasons. First, incomplete preservation may lead to cases where it is unknown whether a fossil species has the “key” feature diagnostic of the clade in question. Thus, the inclusion or exclusion of a fossil species depends on character state optimizations rather than direct data. Second, a trait may be “absent” in a taxon either because it was truly absent or because it was secondarily lost. Similarly, a trait may be “present” because of convergent evolution. Moreover, stem group taxa commonly have highly heterogeneous distributions of apomorphic traits, which may lead to instability when new taxa are sampled and/or alternative topologies are equally likely.
Lastly, the timing of a divergence event may not correspond with the acquisition of a diagnostic apomorphy. For example, the blastozoan Macrocystella is widely recognized as a basal glyptocystitoid rhombiferan even though it lacks the respiratory structures traditionally “diagnostic” of the Glyptocystida (Paul, 1968; Sprinkle, 1973; Zamora et al.,
2016). All of these considerations are highly important when considering patterns of
164
character evolution but may lead to nomenclatural instability if incorporated into clade
definitions.
Although we avoid the use of apomorphies to define clades, we do discuss
morphological traits potentially useful for taxonomic diagnoses. In some cases, our
proposed clade definitions retain much of their traditional meaning and taxonomic
content, with constituent taxa sharing numerous synapomorphies that form unambiguous
taxonomic boundaries (e.g., the Flexibilia). However, in other cases, either substantial
revision was necessary and/or a list of unambiguous diagnostic characters were difficult
or impossible to obtain (e.g., the Articulata). These challenges highlight the utility of
phylogenetic taxonomy. For example, many authors have remarked that the Articulata
has lacked a concise, unambiguous definition since it was first erected by J. S. Miller
nearly 200 years ago (Simms, 1988; Webster and Jell, 1999; Hess and Messing, 2011;
Rouse et al., 2013). A phylogenetic definition of the Articulata provides a clearer
criterion for clade membership and results in a framework for future phylogenetic
research assessing relationships among hypothesized stem clades, crown group
synapomorphies, and subsequent morphologic transitions among crown group subclades.
The clade definitions and revised classification proposed herein represent the present state of knowledge, but systematics is a dynamic science and taxonomic theories are commonly reinterpreted in light of new discoveries. We fully expect our definitions to be refined and/or modified as more information becomes available. Some places of the crinoid tree still require extensive taxonomic revisions, such as Upper Paleozoic ‘cladids’
(sensu Moore and Laudon, 1943) and stem articulates (Wright, 2015b). Despite these
165
potential vicissitudes in the taxonomic content and/or definitions within our proposed
classification, we agree with G.G. Simpson’s sentiment: “It is pusillanimous to avoid
making our best efforts today because they may appear inadequate tomorrow” (1944, p.
xxx [sic]).
Systematic paleontology
Crinoidea Miller, 1821
Definition.—The Crinoidea is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing
Rhodocrinites verus Miller, 1821, Actinocrinites triacontadactylus Miller, 1821, and
Pentacrinites fossilis Blumenbach, 1804 but not Rhopalocystis detombesi Ubaghs, 1963,
Echinosphaerites aurantium (Gyllenhaal, 1772), Eumorphocystis multiporate Branson and Peck, 1940, Protocrinites ouiformis Eichwald, 1840, Cheirocystis antiqua Paul,
1972, Glyptocystella loeblichi (Bassler, 1943), Cambraster cannati Miquel, 1894, and
Cambroblastus enubilatus Smith and Jell, 1990.
Remarks.—This definition captures J. S. Miller’s (1821) original concept based on fossil specimens and retains the name Crinoidea as the clade comprising the crown group plus all extinct species sharing a more recent common ancestor with a living crinoid than any echinoderm taxon listed above as external specifiers (Fig. 4.2). Further, this definition
166 closely resembles the traditional use and taxonomic content of the Crinoidea as used by both biologists and paleontologists (Bather, 1899; Clark, 1915; Jaekel, 1918; Moore and
Teichert, 1978; Hess et al., 1999; Rouse et al., 2013) and accommodates the current state of uncertainty regarding their nearest extinct sister group. In the interest of preserving the taxonomic content and common meaning of a widely used name, our Clade Crinoidea is preferred over Sumrall’s (1997) similarly defined Crinoidoformes (see Cantino and de
Queiroz, 2010, p. 42). The Crinoidea is comprised of two major clades, the Camerata and the Pentacrinoidea, reflecting the early divergence between camerate and non-camerate crinoids (Jaekel, 1918; Donovan, 1988; Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015). Because we provide the Crinoidea with a stem-based definition, the discovery of stemward fossils is accommodated within this definition.
Internal taxon specifiers were chosen because they were included in J. S. Miller’s
(1821) original description and represent well known, well preserved, and highly-nested members of their respective subclades. In contrast to the internal taxon specifiers, the choice of external specifiers is more complex. The use of external specifiers in this definition spanning various ‘blastozoan’ and edrioasteroid-grade groups reflects the current difficulty involved in postulating the nearest definitive sister group as well as the uncertain state of relationships among extinct stemmed echinoderms (Smith, 1984;
Sumrall, 1997, 2014; Ausich, 1998a, 1998b; Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2009; Kammer et al., 2013; Ausich et al., 2015; O’Malley et al., 2016; Guensburg et al., 2016).
Ausich et al.’s (2015) analysis of Ordovician crinoids took a conservative approach to outgroup selection by sampling broadly across taxa nested within the Clade
167
Pelmatozoa (Kammer et al., 2013; Sumrall, 2014). Similarly, we have chosen species from multiple pelmatozoan groups as external specifiers to help provide nomenclatural stability in the presence of phylogenetic uncertainty. Other taxa hypothesized to represent the crinoid sister group include the stylophorans (David et al., 2000) and edrioasteroids
(Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2009; Guensburg et al., 2016). Stylophorans have long been considered non-radiate stem group echinoderms (e.g., Paul and Smith, 1984; Smith,
1984; Smith, 2008) and have been cogently demonstrated to lack crown group synapomorphies (Smith, 2005). Thus, we do not consider the stylophoran hypothesis further. Guensburg and Sprinkle (2009) and Guensburg et al. (2016) regard edrioasteroid echinoderms, such as the stromatocystidid Cambraster or the edrioblastoid
Cambroblastus, to possess apomorphies indicating they share a more recent common ancestor with crinoids than with other echinoderms. Although this hypothesis contrasts with previous studies regarding edrioasteroids as stem group eleutherozoans (Paul and
Smith, 1984; Smith 1984, 1985, 1990; Smith and Zamora, 2013), recent investigations suggest that edrioasteroids may comprise a para- or polyphyletic group (Kammer et al.,
2013; Zamora 2013; Zamora and Rahman, 2014). Some edrioasteroids, such as the isorophids, may be closely related to gogiid eocrinoids, whereas other edrioasteroids, such as Cambraster, may be closer to glyptocystitoid blastozoans and crinoids (Kammer et al., 2013; Zamora et al., 2013; Zamora and Rahman, 2014). Because a comprehensive, up-to-date phylogeny of pentaradiate echinoderm lineages is currently lacking, we tentatively follow Guensburg and Sprinkle (2009) and Guensburg et al. (2016) by
168 including both Cambraster and the edrioblastoid Cambroblastus as additional external taxon specifiers.
Identifying synapomorphies of the Clade Crinoidea requires a phylogenetic hypothesis of their position within the broader echinoderm clade. As discussed above, this remains an open question. Basal members of both the Camerata and Pentacrinoidea have a dicyclic calyx with an irregular field of plates intercalating between fixed proximal brachials, suggesting these may be plesiomorphic traits (cf. Apektocrinus,
Cnemecrinus, Glenocrinus) (Guensburg 2012, Ausich et al., 2015; Cole, in press; Wright, in press), but a definitive list of shared derived traits cannot be provided here. Moreover, it is challenging to propose a list of apomorphies that unambiguously differentiate crinoids from other echinoderm taxa because many traits are not exclusive to crinoids.
Crinoids have been traditionally recognized as distinct from blastozoan-grade echinoderms in having true “arms”, where arms are defined as coelomic extensions of the body cavity (Sprinkle, 1973). However, morphologic observations of solute and diploporitan echinoderms such as Eumorphocystis, as well as the discovery of various
Cambrian ‘blastozoans’ with arm-like appendages strongly suggest that arms may not be an apomorphy unique to crinoids (Clausen et al., 2009; Zamora and Smith, 2011;
Sumrall, 2014; Zamora and Rahman, 2014).
We anticipate future phylogenetic research will help resolve these broader issues in echinoderm phylogeny and evolution. Improved knowledge of relationships among extinct pentaradiate echinoderms may also help refine our definition of the Clade
Crinoidea by removing pleonastic external specifiers. We await its refinement.
169
Camerata Wachsmuth and Springer, 1885
Definition.—The Camerata is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing
Actinocrinites triacontadactylus Miller, 1821 and Rhodocrinites verus Miller, 1821 but
not Pentacrinites fossilis Blumenbach, 1804.
Remarks.—Camerate crinoids represent a diverse, morphologically distinct “stem clade”
(sensu Sereno, 1999; 2005) ranging from the Lower Ordovician to Permian and contain all taxa traditionally placed within the Diplobathrida and Monobathrida (Moore and
Teichert, 1978; Cole, in press). Camerates are most easily differentiated from pentacrinoids in having calyx plates united by rigid sutures, a heavily plated tegmen surface covering the mouth, and a medial plate (or series of plates) in the posterior (i.e.,
CD) interray. Unlike pentacrinoids, the camerate posterior plate series has no proximal topographic affinity with the C ray, although some camerate posterior plates may be homologous with those of pentacrinoids (see Jaekel, 1918, p. 46; Moore and Laudon,
1943; Brower, 1973, p. 301–304; Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003). In addition, typical camerate species have fixed proximal brachials, interradials, and sometimes intrabrachials, whereas most derived pentacrinoid clades lack these features.
Multiple studies indicate strong support for camerate monophyly (Ausich, 1998b;
Ausich et al., 2015; Cole, in press). However, Cole’s (in press) analysis of Ordovician camerates did not find support for a strict division between monocyclic and dicyclic forms. Cole’s (in press) phylogenetic revision proposed narrower restrictions on clade
170
membership to render these taxa monophyletic. Following revision, the Monobathrida
and Diplobathrida are sister clades that together comprise the more inclusive Eucamerata
(Cole, in press). Thus, the stem-based definition of the Camerata contains the Clade
Eucamerata and their stem taxa, including representatives of the oldest known crinoid fossils (e.g., Eknomocrinus, Cnemecrinus), genera placed within the problematic
Reteocrinitidae (see Cole, in press), and may or may not contain the protocrinoids (see
Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003; Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015; Cole, in press).
Eucamerata Cole, in press
Definition.— The Eucamerata is node-defined as the least inclusive clade containing
Actinocrinites triacontadactylus Miller, 1821, Rhodocrinites verus Miller, 1821, and
Rosfacrinus robustus LeMenn and Spjeldnaes, 1996.
Remarks.—Cole (in press) revised the Monobathrida and Diplobathrida to represent monophyletic groups while attempting to preserve the greatest number of taxa traditionally included within each (Moore and Teichert, 1978). The name Eucamerata was proposed to identify the clade of camerates comprised of the sister groups
Monobathrida and Diplobathrida, which necessarily excludes stem taxa such as
Cnemecrinus and Reteocrinus (Cole, in press). The Eucamerata comprise the vast majority of camerate taxa and span the Ordovician through Permian. Eucamerates are characterized generally by the traits listed above for the Camerata, but differ in typically
171
having more strongly ankylosed calyx plate sutures, primaxils on the second
primibrachial, holomeric stems, and pinnulate arms (cf. Actinocrinites and Rhodocrinites
with Eknomocrinus and Reteocrinus).
In an attempt to preserve the stability of sister group relationships between
monobathrid and diplobathrid clades, we provide a node-based definition for the
Eucamerata and stem-based definitions for the Monobathrida and Diplobathrida. The
internal taxon specifiers Actinocrinites and Rhodocrinites are highly-nested constituents
of their respective monobathrid and diplobathrid subclades (Moore and Laudon, 1943;
Cole, in press). Rosfacrinus is cautiously included as an additional external specifier because it occupies a somewhat uncertain position at the base of the eucamerate tree (see discussion in Cole, in press).
Monobathrida Moore and Laudon, 1943
Definition.— The Monobathrida is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing
Glyptocrinus decadactylus Hall, 1847 and Actinocrinites triacontadactylus Miller, 1821 but not Rhodocrinites verus Miller, 1821 and Archaeocrinus lacunosus (Billings, 1857).
Remarks.—When revising Bather’s (1899) polyphyletic division of crinoids into the
Monocyclica and Dicyclica, Moore and Laudon (1943) placed all camerates with monocyclic calyces into the Monobathrida. Cole’s (in press) phylogenetic analysis of
Ordovician camerate crinoids indicates a strict adherence to Moore and Laudon’s (1943)
172
concept of the Monobathrida is not monophyletic. However, removal of the basal
camerates Eknomocrinus and Adelphicrinus renders the Monobathrida a clade (Cole, in press). The internal and external specifiers defining this stem-based clade ensure the taxonomic content closely matches Moore and Laudon (1943).
Monobathrids are a taxonomically diverse group of camerates ranging from the
Ordovician to Permian and are traditionally diagnosed as monocyclic camerates.
Although other clades had similar trends in circlet reduction (e.g., the Disparida), the transformation from a dicyclic to monocyclic calyx likely represents a veritable synapomorphy of monobathrid camerates, as the dicyclic crinoid Gaurocrinus was
recovered as the sister taxon to the Monobathrida by Cole (in press). Additional features diagnostic of a typical monobathrid species include having radial plates larger than other calyx plates, an upright basal circlet, an uninterrupted radial circlet (except in the posterior interray), and a posterior interray with anitaxis plating and an anitaxial ridge.
Diplobathrida Moore and Laudon, 1943
Definition.—The Diplobathrida is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing
Archaeocrinus lacunosus (Billings, 1857) and Rhodocrinites verus Miller, 1821 but not
Actinocrinites triacontadactylus Miller, 1821 and Glyptocrinus decadactylus Hall, 1847.
Remarks.—Similar to the discussion above, Moore and Laudon (1943) placed all of
Bather’s (1899) dicyclic camerate crinoids within the Diplobathrida. As with the
173 monobathrids, Cole’s (in press) phylogenetic analysis of Ordovician camerates revealed
Moore and Laudon’s (1943) Diplobathrida required revision. To achieve monophyly of diplobathrids while retaining much of Moore and Laudon’s (1943) taxonomic content, all dicyclic stem taxa equally related to both monobathrid and diplobathrid camerates sensu
Cole (in press) are removed from the Diplobathrida (e.g., Eknomocrinus, Reteocrinids, etc.). Following Cole’s (in press) suggested revision, our stem-based definition stabilizes the long-held hypothesis that monobathrids and diplobathrids represent sister clades
(Moore and Laudon, 1943; Cole, in press).
Diplobathrids range from the Ordovician through lower Carboniferous
(Serpukhovian). Cole’s (in press) discussion on the taxonomic distribution of diplobathrid morphologies suggests they are generally characterized by a combination of character states, including a dicyclic calyx, a concave calyx base either concealing or partially concealing the infrabasal plates, and the presence of additional plates interrupting the radial circlet in all interrays (e.g., Rhodocrinites). Some diplobathrids sensu Cole (in press), such as the Dimerocrinitidae, are similar to monobathrids in having their radial circlet interrupted only in the posterior interray but can easily be distinguished by their dicyclic calyx. A closer examination of post-Ordovician species indicates a substantial revision of subclades within the Diplobathrida is needed and additional research is currently underway (Cole, 2015)
174
Pentacrinoidea Jaekel, 1918
Definition.—The Pentacrinoidea is stem-defined and as the most inclusive clade containing Apektocrinus ubaghsi Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2009 and Pentacrinites fossilis
Blumenbach, 1804 but not Rhodocrinites verus Miller, 1821 and Actinocrinites triacontadactylus Miller, 1821.
Remarks.—The name Pentacrinoidea originates from Jaekel’s (1894; 1918) prescient observation that camerate and non-camerate crinoid form distinct clades. Although authors after Jaekel (1918) did not adopt this name in subsequent classifications (see
Lane, 1978; Ausich and Kammer, 2001), Jaekel’s usage coincides with this strongly supported clade (Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015; Cole, in press; Wright, in press).
Thus, we propose to reinstate the name Pentacrinoidea with the definition above.
We have chosen two phylogenetically distant non-camerate species as internal specifiers. Pentacrinites fossilis is a well-known fossil species from rocks of Jurassic age and is closely related to extant isocrinid crinoids (David et al., 2006), placing it within the
Crown Crinoidea (see Articulata below). The species Apektocrinus ubaghsi is a Lower
Ordovician fossil and ranks among the stratigraphically oldest known crinoids
(Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2009). However, all phylogenetic research indicates it is closer to non-camerates than camerates and diverges stemward of other basal ‘cladid’ (sensu
Moore and Teichert, 1978) taxa such as Aethocrinus (Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2009;
Guensburg 2012; Ausich et al., 2015; Wright, in press). Our stem-based definition
175
recognizes Jaekel’s (1918) priority of this concept and effectively places all known non-
camerate species within the Pentacrinoidea.
Pentacrinoids are a spectacularly diverse and morphologically heterogeneous clade ranging from the Early Ordovician to present day marine communities. The primary apomorphies differentiating pentacrinoids from camerates relate to their distinctive posterior plating patterns, the degree of calyx plate suturing, and oral region rigidity (‘tegmen’ terminology here is from Ausich and Kammer, 2016). Posterior plates among pentacrinoids display a proximal relationship with the C-ray radial plate
(Guensburg 2010; Wright, 2015a). Subclades within the Pentacrinoidea express this affinity differently (cf. Cladida and Disparida), and extant crinoids do not retain posterior plates as adults. However, the ontogenetic trajectory of posterior plate development in extant crinoids is tightly linked with morphologic patterns among their Paleozoic precursors (Wright, 2015a). Pentacrinoid calyx plates are less closely sutured (i.e., ankylosed) than camerates and typically have a non-rigid to flexible oral region. In many pentacrinoids, the mouth is directly exposed on the oral surface rather than beneath a tegmen (Ausich and Kammer, 2016).
There are several other morphologic features less diagnostic than those described above but still useful for distinguishing most pentacrinoid species from camerates. For example, some basal pentacrinoids such as Apektocrinus, Aethocrinus, and Alphacrinus incorporate additional plates within the calyx (similar to camerates). However, the overwhelming majority of pentacrinoid clades do not. A major exception occurs among flexible crinoids, but flexibles are a derived group of pentacrinoids and can be
176 differentiated from camerates by other apomorphies (see Flexibilia below). Similarly, eucamerate crinoids have pinnules but most early to middle Paleozoic pentacrinoids do not. Pinnulation evolved at least once (and probably several times) during the middle to late Paleozoic among the subclade Cladida (Wright, 2015b), but these taxa can readily be distinguished from eucamerates in having a pentacrinoid-like posterior plating pattern and free arms above the radials.
Inadunata Wachsmuth and Springer, 1885
Definition.—The Inadunata is node-defined and is the least inclusive clade containing
Synbathocrinus conicus Phillips, 1836 and Dendrocrinus longidactylus Hall, 1852.
Remarks.—Wachsmuth and Springer (1885) placed non-articulate fossil crinoids with free arms above the radial plates within the Inadunata. Subsequent classifications divided the Inadunata into the Cladida and Disparida based on the number of circlets in the calyx
(Moore and Laudon, 1943; Moore and Teichert, 1978). In a pioneering study on phylogenetic approaches to crinoid classification, Simms and Sevastopulo (1993) pointed out the Inadunata of Moore and Teichert (1978) was paraphyletic and recommended the name be abandoned. In addition, Simms and Sevastopulo’s (1993) revision resolved the paraphyly of cladid inadunates by including the Flexibilia and Articulata within the
Cladida.
177
The division between the Camerata and Pentacrinoidea (discussed above)
indicates disparids and cladids are more closely related to one another than to camerates
(Fig 4.2). Indeed, recent phylogenetic analyses of Ordovician crinoids recover a sister
group relationship between disparids and cladids (sensu Moore and Laudon, 1943), with
hybocrinids nested within the Cladida (Fig. 4.2) (Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015;
Wright, in press). Our definition of the Inadunata combines Wachsmuth and Springer’s
(1885) original concept with Simms and Sevastopulo’s (1993) revision of the Cladida to
include flexibles and articulates. Note that this definition places basal pentacrinoids, such
as Apektocrinus, outside the Inadunata. We combine a node-based definition of the
Inadunata with stem-based definitions for the subclades Disparida and Cladida to form a node-stem triplet to increase the stability of sister relationships between these taxa
(Sereno, 1999).
The Clade Inadunata ranges from the Early Ordovician to the present and are as a whole well-characterized by Wachsmuth and Springer’s (1885) general concept of crinoids with free arms above the radial plates. Exceptions to this diagnosis occur but are mostly restricted to a few possibly basal taxa and the Flexibilia, which represent a
derived group of inadunates (Springer, 1920).
Disparida Moore and Laudon, 1943
Definition.—The Disparida is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing
Synbathocrinus conicus Phillips, 1836 but not Dendrocrinus longidactylus Hall, 1852.
178
Remarks.—Disparids comprise a diminutive but morphologically and taxonomically
diverse clade of fossil crinoids ranging from the Ordovician through Permian. Moore and
Laudon (1943) erected the Disparida to include all monocyclic inadunates. Disparid
monophyly is well-supported by phylogenetic analyses of Ordovician crinoids
(Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015; Wright, in press) and contains all species closer to
Synbathocrinus than the cladid Dendrocrinus. Given the similar topologies across these studies, the Clade Disparida retains taxa traditionally placed within disparids (sensu
Moore and Laudon, 1943) except for the hybocrinids.
A major synapomorphy and useful diagnostic trait of disparid crinoids is the presence of a single circlet of plates below the radials. All other pentacrinoids are either dicyclic (cladids), pseudomonocyclic (hybocrinids) (see Sprinkle, 1982a), or otherwise
phylogenetically distant from disparids (some derived articulates may not develop
infrabasals, see Lahaye and Jangoux, 1987). Disparids also have simple or compound
radial plates, typically lack pinnules, and approximate bilateral symmetry between rays
oriented in one of several possible planes (see Moore et al, 1978). As pentacrinoids,
disparids have posterior plates in a proximal position to the C ray but differ from cladids
in having plates positioned above rather than below or in-line with the C-ray radial plate.
However, posterior plate homologies among disparids and between inadunate clades are
presently obscured by a set of descriptive terms opaque to homology. Whether the
proximal C-ray posterior plate is an “anibrachial”, “radianal”, “anal X”, “superradial”, or
a “radial” is uncertain (Moore, 1962; Moore and Teichert, 1978; Ausich, 1996). Future
179
work is needed to help clarify primary posterior plate homologies among disparids and
between cladids and disparids. The results of Wright’s (in press) analysis of Ordovician
through Devonian pentacrinoid taxa support Guensburg’s (2010) assessment of
Alphacrinus as a lower Tremadocian crinoid phylogenetically close to the base of the
disparid clade. Guensburg (2010) considered the posterior of Alphacrinus to express a
transitional form between “typical” pentacrinoid posterior plates and the ray-like
extensions common among disparid taxa. A re-examination of the posterior interray of
basal taxa combined with studies on disparid ontogeny may help resolve this issue.
Cladida Moore and Laudon, 1943
Definition.—The Cladida is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing
Dendrocrinus longidactylus Hall, 1852 but not Synbathocrinus conicus Phillips, 1836.
Remarks.—The Cladida were originally defined by Moore and Laudon (1943) to comprise a tremendously diverse and long-ranging (Ordovician–Triassic) assemblage of dicyclic inadunates with their mouths covered with primary peristomial cover plates
(Ausich and Kammer, 2016). Moore and Laudon’s (1943) original concept and taxonomic content of the Cladida is paraphyletic, as they agreed with Springer’s (1920) earlier assessment that flexible crinoids were more closely related to some cladids than others but did not place the Flexibilia within the Cladida. Moreover, post-Paleozoic crinoids within Miller’s (1821) Articulata have long been considered descendants of
180
Paleozoic cladids (Jaekel, 1918; Moore et al., 1952; Rassmussen, 1978; Simms, 1988).
Simms and Sevastopulo (1993) conducted a cladistic analysis of Paleozoic cladids,
flexibles, and articulate crinoids and subsequently remedied cladid paraphyly by placing
the Flexibilia and the Articulata within the Cladida (sensu Moore and Laudon, 1943).
Although many authors have followed Simms and Sevastopulo’s (1993) interpretations of
relationships among these taxa, only a few authors have since followed their revised
rank-based classification (e.g., Brower, 2001, 2002; Donovan and Harper, 2003).
Our stem-based definition of the Cladida is similar in taxonomic content to
Simms and Sevastopulo (1993) because it includes all species closer to Dendrocrinus
than to the disparid Synbathocrinus. Thus, the Cladida spans the Ordovician to the Recent
and contains the major subclades Porocrinoidea, Flexibilia, and Articulata. Cladids are
most easily distinguished from their sister group, the Disparida, in typically having a
dicyclic calyx and posterior plates (as adults or during development) located below
and/or in-line with the radial plate circlet (Wright, 2015a). Lastly, many middle Paleozoic
to Recent cladids have pinnules, whereas most disparids do not (Frest et al., 1979).
Porocrinoidea Wright, in press
Definition.—The Porocrinoidea is node-defined and is the least inclusive clade containing
Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857 and Hybocrinus conicus Billings, 1857.
181
Remarks.—In their description of crinoids belonging to Bather’s (1899) ‘Cyathocrinina’,
Moore and Laudon (1943) speculated that “primitive” cyathocrinoids such as
Carabocrinus might be closely related to the enigmatic taxon Hybocrinus. Sprinkle
(1982a) argued the stem and calyx morphology of Hybocrinus suggested hybocrinids
were “pseudomonocyclic” and listed a number of characters linking hybocrinids with
cladids. Although hybocrinids have not traditionally been classified within the Cladida,
many phylogenetic analyses of Ordovician crinoids have recovered a clade of
‘cyathocrine’ grade cladids and hybocrinids (Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015;
Wright, in press). Wright’s (in press) phylogenetic analysis of Ordovician through
Devonian pentacrinoids recovered a clade comprised of Porocrinus, Carabocrinus, and
the hybocrinids Hybocrinus and Hybocystites. Notably, this clade is stemward of the split
between flexible and other cladid crinoids. Thus, Wright (in press) proposed the name
Porocrinoidea to encompass this early diverging and morphologically unique clade of
Ordovician crinoids.
Our node-based definition of the Porocrinoidea sets up a node-stem triplet that
stabilizes the sister clade relationship among the Porocrinida and Hybocrinida recovered by Ausich et al. (2015), which had denser taxon sampling of Ordovician crinoids than
Wright (in press). The Clade Porocrinoidea is likely limited to the Ordovician Period, but
additional analyses sampling younger species are needed to test the extent of their
geologic duration. Porocrinoids are a subclade of cladids characterized by globose,
conical, or ovate calyces that possess a number of apomorphies convergent with
blastozoan echinoderms, such as having thecal respiratory structures, reduction in arm
182
number and calyx plates, and/or recumbent ambulacra (see Moore and Teichert, 1978;
Sprinkle, 1982a, 1982b).
Porocrinida Miller and Gurley, 1894
Definition.—The Porocrinida is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing
Porocrinus conicus Billings, 1857 and Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857 but not
Hybocrinus conicus Billings, 1857.
Remarks.—The Porocrinida comprise a small clade of Ordovician porocrinoids with
apomorphic endothecal and/or exothecal respiratory structures. Sprinkle (1982b) pointed
to many similarities among Carabocrinus, Palaeocrinus, and the Porocrinidae and
hypothesized they may be closely related. Ausich et al. (2015) recovered a topology
supporting this hypothesis with the Euspirocrinid Illemocrinus as their sister taxon.
However, Wright (in press) recovered Euspirocrinus outside the porocrinid clade within a
different clade of ‘cyathocrine’ grade cladids. Thus, Illemocrinus is tentatively placed
within the Porocrinida, but other taxa within the Euspriocrinidae should not be placed
within the Porocrinida at this time as additional revisions are necessary. Guensburg
(2012) recovered a similar tree to Ausich et al. (2015) that suggested Perittocrinus may
be also be a porocrinid.
The stem-based definition of the Porocrinida makes them sister to the
Hybocrinida and retains the taxonomic membership of this clade recovered in Ausich et
183
al. (2015) and Guensburg (2012). Porocrinids can easily be distinguished from
hybocrinids in having a dicyclic calyx and the presence of thecal respiratory structures
(Kesling and Paul, 1968; Sprinkle, 1982b).
Hybocrinida Jaekel, 1918
Definition.—The Hybocrinida is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing
Hybocrinus conicus Billings, 1857 and Hybocystites problematicus Wetherby, 1880 but not Porocrinus conicus Billings, 1857 and Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857.
Remarks.—Hybocrinids comprise a small yet morphologically disparate clade of
Ordovician crinoids. Although the monocyclic hybocrinids have either been considered disparids or classified outside the Inadunata (Moore and Laudon, 1943; Moore and
Teichert, 1978; Ausich 1998b), Sprinkle (1982a) suspected hybocrinids might be
“pseudomonocyclic” and potentially related to ‘cyathocrine’ cladids (see Sprinkle, 1982a,
1982b). Phylogenetic analyses by Guensburg (2012), Ausich et al. (2015), and Wright (in
press) all support the monophyly of the Hybocrinida and their sister group relationship
with taxa placed in the Porocrinida (see Sprinkle, 1982a).
In addition to having a “pseudomonocyclic” calyx (infrabasals absent),
hybocrinids are characterized by a number of unusual apomorphies that distinguish them
from Porocrinids (and all other crinoids). Many of these traits are similar to those
typically present in blastozoan echinoderms, including reduction in the number of arms,
184
modification of food-gathering appendages to be recumbent (sometimes extending
downward over calyx plates), and reduction in the number of calyx plates (Sprinkle and
Moore, 1978).
Flexibilia Zittel, 1895
Definition.—The Flexibilia is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing
Taxocrinus macrodactylus (Phillips, 1841) but not Dendrocrinus longidactylus Hall,
1852.
Remarks.—Flexible crinoids are a morphologically homogeneous clade that originated sometime during the Middle to Late Ordovician and range through the Permian. Frank
Springer (1911, 1920) was the first to recognize that flexible crinoids were closely related to inadunates. In his comprehensive 1920 monograph, The Crinoidea Flexibilia, Springer
compared morphologic characteristics of the inadunate Cupulocrinus with the earliest
known flexible Protaxocrinus, citing numerous similarities in calyx plating, interradial
areas, and the arrangement of posterior plates. Springer (1920) concluded Cupulocrinus
was potentially a transitional fossil that linked inadunates with flexibles, stating, “there is
clearly an intermingling of the characters…and it is evident that in Cupulocrinus we have
to deal with a transition [sic] form whose exact status is difficult to decide” (Springer,
1920, p. 89). Subsequent taxonomic treatments have also recognized Cupulocrinus as
185 occupying a proximal position to the base of the flexible tree (Moore and Laudon, 1943;
Moore and Teichert, 1978).
Phylogenetic analyses sampling flexible and other crinoid taxa have invariably recovered tree topologies supporting Springer’s (1911, 1920) hypothesis, with
Cupulocrinus recovered as the sister taxon to Flexibilia (Brower, 1995, 2001; Ausich,
1998b; Ausich et al., 2015; Wright, in press). Wright’s (in press) analysis used Bayesian methods to estimate the probability of Cupulocrinus being ancestral (sensu Foote, 1996) to the flexible clade. Results strongly support Cupulocrinus as occupying an ancestral position (posterior probability = 0.99) (Wright, in press). Given these results and our stem-based definition of the Flexibilia, species of Cupulocrinus are now placed within the flexibles.
Flexible crinoids have loosely-sutured calyx plating and a remarkably uniform set of apomorphies relative to other crinoid clades. For example, flexibles differ from cladids in having interradial and intrabrachial plates and differ from other dicyclic crinoids in typically having their lowermost circlet comprised of three (rather than five) infrabasal plates. One infrabasal plate, the “azygous”, is smaller than the other two that formed by fusion and is located in the C ray (except for the derived Forbesiocrinus). Many flexibles retain posterior plate arrangements similar to other cladids, but posterior plates are sometimes absent in more derived flexibles. In contrast with cladids, arms of flexible crinoids are universally uniserial and lack pinnules, and the stem is nearly always transversely circular (Springer, 1920).
186
Eucladida Wright, in press
Definition.—The Eucladida is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing
Dendrocrinus longidactylus Hall, 1952 and Pentacrinites fossilis Blumenbach, 1804 but
not Taxocrinus macrodactylus (Phillips, 1841).
Remarks.—The revision of the Cladida to be monophyletic requires placing the subclades
Porocrinoidea, Flexibilia, and Articulata within a more inclusively defined Clade Cladida
(Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993; Wright, in press). However, the Cladida (sensu Moore
and Laudon, 1943) is traditionally conceived as a Paleozoic-age paraphyletic group that
excludes the Flexibilia. The Eucladida was proposed by Wright (in press) to comprise all
species within the Clade Cladida sharing a more recent common ancestor with
Dendrocrinus and Pentacrinites than with Taxocrinus. Thus, the stem-based clades
Flexibilia and Eucladida are sister to one another and articulates are nested within the
Eucladida. This Eucladida retains much of the meaning and taxonomic content of Moore and Laudon’s (1943) concept for Paleozoic cladids while eschewing paraphyly.
In the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Moore et al. (1978) recognized three rank-based taxa within the Cladida: the Dendrocrinida, the Cyathocrinida, and the
Poteriocrinida. However, it has long been questioned whether or not these taxa represent monophyletic groups (McIntosh, 1986; 2001; Sevastopulo and Lane, 1988; Simms and
Sevastopulo, 1993; Kammer and Ausich, 1992, 1996; Wright, 2015a, 2015b; Wright and
Ausich, 2015). Indeed, the Poteriocrinida is depicted in the Treatise as a polyphyletic
187
group (Moore et al., 1978, fig. 412). A phylogenetic analysis of Ordovician through
Devonian pentacrinoids by Wright (in press) has confirmed the doubts over the monophyly of these taxa. Much of the problem arises from ambiguous and/or uninformative apomorphies chosen for these taxa that perpetuate taxonomic anarchy via
“undiagnostic diagnoses” (Wright, 2015b, see Lane, 1978, p. T295). Although much revision is needed, recent analyses indicate there is nevertheless considerable phylogenetic structure among subclades of Paleozoic cladids and additional work is underway to revise this diverse group (Wright, 2015b).
Articulata Miller, 1821
Definition.—The Articulata is node-defined as the least inclusive clade containing
Endoxocrinus parrae (Gervais, 1835) and Antedon bifida (Pennant, 1777).
Remarks.—The Articulata was proposed by Miller (1821) and has since developed a longstanding reputation as a problematic group that lacks a concise and unambiguous definition (Rasmussen, 1978; Simms, 1988; Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993; Webster and
Jell, 1999; Rouse et al., 2013). Although all extant crinoids are invariably recognized as articulates, much confusion surrounds the recognition of fossil articulates and the timing of their origin. The primary difficulties surround which apomorphy (or combination of apomorphies) is useful for diagnosing the Articulata. For example, it is widely appreciated that no apomorphy or unique set of apomorphies can presently diagnose
188 fossil articulates without ambiguity (Simms, 1988; Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993;
Webster and Jell, 1999; Rouse et al, 2013). Most crinoid workers have obviated this problem by simply treating the Articulata as synonymous with post-Paleozoic crinoids
(see Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993). However, this usage is problematic because this definition is not based on any explicit phylogenetic hypothesis. Moreover, many
Paleozoic groups of fossil cladids share different combinations of traits typically listed as
“diagnostic” for the Articulata (Webster and Jell, 1999; Webster and Lane, 2007). If the concept of what defines the Articulata depends on the choice of a particular combination of apomorphies alone, then questions regarding the “origin of the Articulata” will always depend on which specific combination was chosen a priori to be diagnostic. Without a phylogenetic definition, it is impossible to objectively specify a precise set of synapomorphies for the Articulata. Thus, we propose herein to define the Articulata as the crinoid crown group containing the last common ancestor of the extant isocrinid
Endoxocrinus parrae and the comatulid Antedon bifida, and all of its descendants.
As discussed by Ruta et al. (2003), the concepts of stem groups and crown groups are sometimes misinterpreted or misused in the paleontological literature. Used properly, crown groups are defined by extant taxon specifiers. Notably, crown groups may be comprised of many (or mostly) extinct fossil species. For example, if a fossil crinoid is more closely related to some extant species than others, it is a member of the crown group. According to Rouse et al. (2013), the most recent common ancestor of all extant crinoids lived sometime during the Middle to Upper Triassic. Thus, our node-based definition eliminates the non-phylogenetic concept of “post-Paleozoic Crinoidea” while
189 retaining the majority of post-Paleozoic crinoids traditionally included within the
Articulata. The Clade Articulata is synonymous with the Crown Crinoidea (Sumrall,
2014), and we advocate workers use these terms interchangeably depending on context
(e.g., discussing relationships among crinoids or between crinoids and non-crinoids).
Traits that may be present in the Articulate ancestor are listed in Simms (1988), Simms and Sevastopulo (1993), Webster and Jell (1999), and Rouse et al. (2013).
The Articulata likely contains most post-Paleozoic taxa traditionally considered articulates, including the ~600 or so extant species. Although our definition of the
Articulata is defined with precision and phylogenetic stability (Rouse et al., 2013; Rouse et al., 2015), it remains difficult in practice to unambiguously identify fossil articulates, particularly among specimens near the base of the articulate tree. However, such difficulties are already present and have long obfuscated the origin of the crinoid crown group. The more important problem is resolving the phylogenetic position of the common ancestor of extant crinoids within the myriad of fossil lineages. Our definition provides a useful framework for future phylogenetic research to uncover relationships between potential stem articulates, extinct crown group lineages, and extant species.
A revised rank-based classification of the Crinoidea
Crinoid clades identified herein confirm many long-held views on the major divisions among crinoids from both the foundational work of Moore and Laudon (1943) and
190
Moore and Teichert (1978) to more recent analyses (i.e., Ausich, 1998a, 1998b;
Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003; Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015). Results from all of
these studies recognized the Camerata, Diplobathrida, Monobathrida, Hybocrinida,
Disparida, Cladida, and Flexibilia. The challenge is to represent these widely recognized
clades in a rank-based Linnaean classification scheme that maximizes common usages of names for crinoid lineages (Moore and Teichert, 1978) and is consistent with a phylogenetic understanding of relationships (Wiley and Lieberman, 2011). In our revision, the Crinoidea remain a class and every attempt is made to retain orders as
recognized in Moore and Teichert (1978). Unfortunately, the tree topology of Figure 4.2
prevented the attainment of the latter in all instances, but the addition of intermediate
Linnaean ranks makes it easier to apply a phylogenetic perspective to rank-based crinoid
classification. The use of intermediate ranks (e.g., Parvclass) follows traditional use in
pre-existing taxonomic literature (see Carroll 1988; Sibley, 1994; Benton, 2005). Two older taxonomic names, the Pentacrinoidea Jaekel, 1918 and Inadunata Wachsmuth and
Springer, 1885, are formally reinstated herein because they represent meaningful clades as described above.
Post-Ordovician cladids (sensu Moore and Laudon, 1943) and the Protocrinoida
(Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003) remain problematic groups. Because the rank for a monophyletic Cladida must be above flexibles and articulates (Simms and Sevastopulo,
1993), we propose the name Cyathoformes to contain taxa traditionally placed within the
Cladida that are sister to the Articulata. Relationships among these taxa are the subject of future phylogenetic research (Wright, 2015b) and are not treated further here. From their
191
initial description (Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003), the protocrinoids have been an
important but confounding group of crinoids that display characteristics of both crinoids
and other stalked echinoderms. Guensburg and Sprinkle (2003) regarded the protocrinoid
as an “order (plesion)”. The validity of the protocrinoids was later questioned by
Guensburg and Sprinkle (2009) and led Guensburg (2012) to formally place them within
the Camerata. However, Ausich et al. (2015) recovered a sister group relationship
between Titanocrinus and Glenocrinus, but with protocrinoids more closely related to
non-camerates than camerates. In contrast, Cole’s (in press) analysis of Ordovician crinoids recovered the protocrinoids as more closely related to camerates than non- camerates. Thus, we have carefully chosen our clade definitions above to not depend on a particular phylogenetic hypothesis or morphologic interpretation of these significant but problematic taxa. For the moment, we tentatively place both protocrinoid taxa as
Crinoidea incertae sedis subclass Protocrinoida.
In our present understanding of crinoid evolution, the first major divergence
occurs between camerates and all other crinoids (Fig. 4.2). The subclass rank is retained
for the Camerata; and the subclass Pentacrinoidea Jaekel, 1918 is proposed for its sister
group (Table 3.2). Within the Camerata, the orders Diplobathrida and Monobathrida are
retained as sister groups, and the infraclass Eucamerata Cole (in press) unites these two
orders. In phylogenetic analyses of camerates, several taxa are not placed within the
Monobathrida and Diplobathrida (sensu Cole, in press). Thus, they are considered here to be stem eucamerates (see remarks for Eucamerata above). The subclass Camerata unites these stem taxa with eucamerates.
192
In terms of species richness, the subclass Pentacrinoidea is the largest crinoid
clade. This includes the Disparida, Cladida, Hybocrinida, and Articulata of Moore and
Teichert (1978), which coincides exactly with the Jaekel’s (1918) concept of the
Pentacrinoidea (see Lane, 1978). Hence, we have proposed the reinstatement of this
name. The Pentacrinoidea is comprised of the infraclass Inadunata and their stem taxa
(e.g., Apektocrinus). The concept for the Inadunata in Moore and Teichert (1978) united the Disparida and the Cladida. Here, the infraclass Inadunata unites the Disparida,
Cladida, and all of their descendants, the latter of which were traditionally placed outside the Cladida. This usage circumvents the non-phylogenetic usage of the Inadunata (sensu
Moore and Teichert, 1978) and is consistent with the phylogenetic conclusions of Simms and Sevastopulo (1993). With the Inadunata an infraclass, the Disparida and Cladida are both parvclasses. Taxa placed within the Disparida are in need of revision and current work is underway to establish relationships among sublcades (Ausich and Donovan,
2015).
Within the Cladida, the Hybocrinida, Porocrinida, Taxocrinida Springer, 1913; and Sagenocrinida Springer, 1913 are orders (Table 2). The orders Hybocrinida and
Porocrinida are sister groups forming the superorder Porocrinoidea Wright (in press). The
Flexibilia are transferred to the superorder rank which is comprised of the two sister groups, order Taxocrinida and order Sagenocrinida. The Cyathoformes and Articulata comprise the magnorder Eucladida (Wright, in press). The Eucladida retains most cyathocrinids, dendrocrinids, and poteriocrinids of Moore and Teichert (1978). As discussed above, phylogenetic relationships within this clade await further study (Wright,
193
2015b). Analyses detailing the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic crinoid phylogeny are needed to understand this crucial period of crinoid evolution. Lastly, the Articulata is considered a superorder within the Cladida.
Conclusions
A phylogeny-based revision of crinoid systematics is proposed to clarify the definition of
clades and inform a major revision of the rank-based Linnaean classification. These
revisions are based on recent computational phylogenetic analyses that build on the
historic subdivision of crinoids into major lineages. It is hoped that the phylogenetic
classification schemes presented herein will help provide a framework for future research
on crinoid phylogeny and offer guidance to crinoid workers and non-specialists alike
interested in using this fascinating group of echinoderms to study evolutionary patterns
and processes.
194
References
Alaniz, R.J., 2014, Dredging evolutionary theory: the emergence of the deep sea as a
transatlantic site for evolution 1853–1876 [Ph.D. dissertation]: University of
California, San Diego, 360 p.
Angelin, N. P., 1878, Iconographia Crinoideorum. in stratis Sueciae Siluricis fossilium:
Samson and Wallin, Holmiae, 62 p.
Ausich, W.I., 1980, A model for niche differentiation in lower Mississippian crinoid
communities: Journal of Palontology, v. 54, p. 273–288.
Ausich, W.I., 1986, Early Silurian rhodocrinitacean crinoids (Brassfield Formation,
Ohio): Journal of Paleontology, v. 60, p. 84–106.
Ausich, W.I., 1996, Crinoid plate circlet homologies: Journal of Paleontology, v. 70, p.
955–964.
Ausich, W.I., 1998a, Early phylogeny and subclass division of the Crinoidea (phylum
Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology, v. 72, p. 499–510.
Ausich, W.I., 1998b, Phylogeny of Arenig to Caradoc Crinoids (Phylum Echinodermata)
and suprageneric classification of the Crinoidea: The University of Kansas
Paleontological Contributions Papers, New Series, no. 9, 36 p.
Ausich, W.I., and Babcock, L.E., 1998, The phylogenetic position of Echmatocrinus
brachiatus, a probable octocoral from the Burgess Shale: Palaeontology, v. 41, p.
193–202.
195
Ausich, W.I., and Bottjer, D.J., 1982, Tiering in suspension-feeding communities on soft
substrata throughout the Phanerozoic: Science, v. 216, p. 173–174.
Ausich, W.I., and Copper, P., 2010, The Crinoidea of Anticosti Island, Québec: (Late
Ordovician to Early Silurian): Palaeontographica Canadiana, vol. 29, 157 p.
Ausich, W.I., and Donovan, S.K., 2015, Phylogeny of disparid crinoids: Geological
Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 47, p. 855.
Ausich, W.I., and Kammer, T.W., 2001, The study of crinoids during the 20th century
and the challenges of the 21st century: Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 1161–
1173.
Ausich, W.I., and Kammer, T.W., 2008, Generic concepts in the Amphoracrinidae
Bather, 1899 (Class Crinoidea) and evaluation of generic assignments of North
American species: Journal of Paleontology, v. 82, p. 1139–1149.
Ausich, W.I., and Kammer, T.W., 2016, Exaptation of pelmatozoan oral surfaces:
constructional pathways in tegmen evolution: Journal of Paleontology,
doi:10.1017/jpa.2016.73.
Ausich, W.I., Kammer, T.W., and Baumiller, T.K., 1994, Demise of the Middle
Paleozoic crinoid fauna: a single extinction event or rapid faunal turnover?:
Paleobiology, v. 20, p. 345–361.
Ausich, W.I., Kammer, T.W., Rhenberg, E.C., and Wright. D.F., 2015, Early phylogeny
of crinoids within the Pelmatozoan clade: Palaeontology, v. 58, p. 937–952.
196
Bassler, R. S., 1943, New Ordovician cystidean echinoderm from Oklahoma: American
Journal of Science, v. 241, p. 694–703.
Bather, F.A., 1898, Wachsmuth and Springer’s classification of crinoids: Natural
Science, v. 12, p. 337–345.
Bather, F.A., 1899, A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa: British Association
for the Advancement of Science (1898), p. 916–923.
Bather, F.A., 1900, Part III The Echinoderma. The Pelmatozoa, in Lankester, E.R., ed., A
Treatise on Zoology: Adam and Charles Black, London, p. 94–204.
Baumiller, T.K., 2008, Crinoid ecological morphology: Annual Review of Earth and
Planetary Sciences, v. 36, p. 221–249.
Benton, M.J., 2000, Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead?:
Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, v. 75, p. 633–648.
Benton, M.J., 2005, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edition: Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Benton, M.J., 2007, The Phylocode: Beating a dead horse?: Acta Palaeontologica
Polonica, v. 52, p. 651–655.
Billings, E., 1857, New species of fossils from Silurian rocks of Canada: Canada Geological
Survey, Report of Progress 1853-1856, Report for the year 1856, p. 247–345.
Blumenbach, J. F., 1802–1804, Abbildungen naturhistorischer Gegenstiinde: Gottingen,
pt. 70, no. 70, 4 p.
Branson, E.B., and Peck, R.E., 1940, A new cystoid from the Ordovician of Oklahoma: Journal
of Paleontology, v. 14, p. 89–92. 197
Brochu, C.A., 2003, Phylogenetic approaches toward crocodylian history: Annual
Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 31, p. 357–397.
Brochu, C.A., and Sumrall, C.D., 2001, Phylogenetic nomenclature and paleontology:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 754–757.
Brower, J.C., 1973, Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician): Palaeontographica
Americana, v. 7, p. 263–499.
Brower, J.C., 1995, Dendrocrinid crinoids from the Ordovician of northern Iowa and
southern Minnesota: Journal of Paleontology, v.69, p. 939–960.
Brower, J. C., 2001, Flexible crinoids from the Upper Ordovician Maquoketa Formation
of the Northern Midcontinent and the evolution of early flexible crinoids: Journal
of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 370–382.
Brower, J.C., 2002, Cupulocrinus angustatus (Meek and Worthen, 1870), A cladid
crinoid from the Upper Ordovician Maquoketa Formation of the Northern
Midcontinent of the United States: Journal of Paleontology, v. 76, p. 109–122.
Butler, R.J., Upchurch, P., and Norman, D.B., 2008, The phylogeny of the ornithischian
dinosaurs: Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, v. 6, p. 1–40.
Cantino, P.D., and de Queiroz, K., 2010, PhyloCode: International code of phylogenetic
nomenclature, version 4c, 90 p.
Carlson, S. J., 2001, Ghosts of the past, present, and future in brachiopod systematics:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 1109–1118.
198
Carlson, S.J., and Leighton, L.R., 2001, The phylogeny and classification of
Rhynchonelliformea: The Paleontological Society Special Papers, v. 7, p. 27–51.
Carroll, R. L., 1988, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution: WH Freeman, New York,
698 p.
Clark, A. H. 1908. Description of new species of crinoids, chiefly from the collections
made by U.S. Fisheries steamer ‘‘Albatross’’ at the Hawaiian Islands in 1902,
with remarks on the classification of the Comatulida: Proceedings of the U.S.
National Museum, v. 34, p. 209–239.
Clark, A.H., 1915, A monograph of the existing crinoids, part 1: Bulletin of the United
States National Museum 82, p. 1–406.
Clark, A.H., 1921, A monograph of existing crinoids, part 2: Bulletin of the United States
National Museum 82, p. 1–795.
Clark, A.H., and Clark, A.M., 1967, A monograph of existing crinoids, part 5: Bulletin of
the United States National Museum 82, p. 1–806.
Clausen, S., Jell, P.A., Legrain, X., and Smith, A.B., 2009, Pelmatozoan arms from the
Middle Cambrian of Australia: bridging the gap between brachioles and
brachials?: Lethaia, v. 42, p. 283–296.
Cohen, B.L., Ameziane, N., Eleaume, M., and de Forges, B.R., 2004, Crinoid phylogeny:
a preliminary analysis (Echinodermata: Crinoidea): Marine Biology, v. 144, p.
605–617.
199
Cole, S.R., 2015, A phylogenetic test of the suprageneric classification of diplobathrid
crinoids: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 47, p. 853.
Cole, S.R., in press, Phylogeny and morphologic evolution of the Ordovician Camerata
(Class Crinoidea, Phylum Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology.
Darwin, C., 1859, On the origin of species by means of natural selection: Murray,
London, 502 p.
David, B., Lefebvre B., Mooi, R., and Parsley, R., 2000, Are homalozoans echinoderms?
An answer from extraxial-axial theory: Paleobiology, v. 26, p. 529–555.
David, B., Roux, M., Messing, C.G., and Ameziane, N., 2006, Revision of the
pentacrinid stalked crinoids of the genus Endoxocrinus (Echinodermata,
Crinoidea), with a study of environmental control characters and its consequences
for taxonomy: Zootaxa, v. 1156, p. 1–50.
Deline, B., and Ausich, W.I., 2011, Testing the plateau: a reexamination of disparity and
morphologic constraints in early Paleozoic crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 37, p. 214–
236. de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J., 1990, Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy:
phylogenetic definitions of taxon names: Systematic Biology, v. 39, p. 307–322. de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J., 1992, Phylogenetic taxonomy: Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, v. 23, p. 449–480. de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J., 1994, Toward a phylogenetic system of biological
nomenclature: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 9, p. 27–31.
200
Donovan, S.K., 1988, The early evolution of the Crinoidea, in Paul, C.R.C., and Smith, A.B.,
eds, Echinoderm phylogeny and evolutionary biology: Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 235–
244.
Donovan, S.K., and Harper, D.A.T., 2003, Llandovery crinoidea of the British Isles, including
description of a new species from the Kilbride Formation (Telychian) of western Ireland:
Geological Journal, v. 38, p. 85–97.
Eichwald, E., von, 1840, Ueber das Silurische Schichtensystem in Ethlands, St. Petersburg, 200
p.
Etter, W., and Hess, H., 2015, Reviews and syntheses: the first records of deep-sea fauna
– a correction and discussion: Biogeosciences, v. 12, p. 6453–6462.
Feuda, R., and Smith, A.B., 2015, Phylogenetic signal dissection identifies the root of
starfishes: PLoS ONE, v. 10.5, e0123331.
Foote, M., 1996, On the probability of ancestors in the fossil record: Paleobiology, v. 22,
p. 141–151.
Foote, M., 1999, Morphological diversity in the evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic and
post-Paleozoic crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 25, p. 1–115.
Foote, M., and Raup, D.M., 1996, Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa:
Paleobiology, v. 22, p. 121–140.
Foote, M., and Sepkoski, J.J., 1999, Absolute measures of the completeness of the fossil
record: Science, v. 398, p. 415–417.
201
Forey, P.L., Fortey, R.A., Kenrick, P., and Smith, A.B., 2004, Taxonomy and fossils: a
critical appraisal: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, v. 359, p. 639–653.
Frest, T.J., Strimple, H.L., and McGinnis, M.R., 1979, Two new crinoids from the Ordovician of
Virginia and Oklahoma, with notes on pinnulation in the Disparida: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 53, p. 399–415.
Gahn, F.J., and Kammer, T.W., 2002, The cladid crinoid Barycrinus from the Burlington
Limestone (Early Osagean) and the phylogenetics of Mississippian botryocrinids:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 76, p. 123–133.
Gervais, F.L.P., 1835, In Guérin, ed., Dictionnaire pittoresque d’histoire naturelle et des
phénomènes de la nature, vol. 3, p. 48–49, Lenormand, Paris.
Goldfuss, G.A., 1826-44, Petrefacta Germaniae, tam ea, Quae in Museo Universitatis Regiae
Borussicae Fridericiae Wilhelmiae Rhenanea, serventur, quam alia quaecunque in Museis
Hoeninghusiano Muensteriano aliisque, extant, iconibus et descriiptionns illustrata. --
Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der Petrefacten Deutschlands und der Angränzende
Länder, unter Mitwirkung des Hern Grafen Georg zu Münster, herausgegeben von August
Goldfuss. v. 1 (1826-1833), Divisio prima. Zoophytorum reliquiae, p. 1-114; Divisio
secunda. Radiariorum reliquiae, p. 115-221 [Echinodermata]; Divisio tertia. Annulatorium
reliquiae, p. 222-242; v. 2 (1834-40), Divisio quarta. Molluscorum acephalicorum reliquiae.
I. Bivalvia, p. 65-286; II. Brachiopoda, p. 287-303; III. (1841-44), Divisio quinta.
202
Molluscorum gasteropodum reliquiae, p. 1-121; atlas of plates, 1–199, Düsseldorf, Arnz &
Co.
Gorzelak, P., Salamon, M.A., Trzęsiok, D., Lach, R., and Baumiller, T.K., 2015,
Diversity dynamics of post‐Palaeozoic crinoids–in quest of the factors affecting
crinoid macroevolution: Lethaia, v. 49, p. 231–244.
Gould, S.J., Gilinsky, N.L, and German, R.Z., 1987, Asymmetry of lineages and the
direction of evolutionary time: Science, v. 236, p. 1437–1441.
Guensburg, T.E., 2010, Alphacrinus new genus and origin of the disparid clade: Journal
of Paleontology, v. 84, p. 1209–1216.
Guensburg, T.E., 2012, Phylogenetic implications of the oldest crinoids: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 86, p. 455–461.
Guensburg, T.E., and Sprinkle, J., 2003, The oldest known crinoids (Early Ordovician,
Utah) and a new crinoid plate homology system: Bulletins of American
Paleontology, v. 364, 43 p.
Guensburg, T.E., and Sprinkle, J., 2007, Phylogenetic implications of the Protocrinoida:
Blastozoans are not ancestral to crinoids: Annals de Paleontologie, v. 93, p. 277–
290.
Guensburg, T.E., and Sprinkle, J., 2009, Solving the mystery of crinoid ancestry: new
fossil evidence of arm origin and development: Journal of Paleontology, v. 83, p.
350–364.
203
Guensburg, T.E., Blake, D.B., Sprinkle, J., and Mooi, R., 2016, Crinoid ancestry without
blastozoans: Acta Palaeontological Polonica, v. 61, p. 253–266.
Gyllenhaal, J.A., 1772, Beskrifning på de så kallade Crystall-äplen och kalkbollar, såsom
petreficerade Djur af Echini genus, eller dess närmaste slägtingar. Kongl. Svenska
Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar: v. 33, p. 239–261.
Hall, J., 1847., Palaeontology of New York Volume I. Containing descriptions of the organic
remains of the lower division of the New-York system (equivalent of the Lower Silurian
rocks of Europe), Natural History of New York: New York, C. Van Benthuysen, Albany,
v. 6, 338 p.
Hall, J., 1852, Palaeontology of New York Volume II. Containing descriptions of the organic
remains of the lower middle division of the New-York system, Natural History of New
York: New York, D. Appleton & Co. and Wiley & Putnam; Boston, Gould, Kendall, &
Lincoln, v. 6, 362 p.
Hall, J., 1858, Chapter 8. Palaeontology of Iowa. in Hall, J. and Whitney, J.D., Report of the
Geological Survey of the state of Iowa. Embracing the results of investigations made during
portions of the years 1855, 56 &. 57, v. 1, part II; Palaeontology, p. 473–724.
Hall, J., 1859, Contributions to the palaeontology of Iowa, being descriptions of new species of
Crinoidea and other fossils: Geological Report of Iowa Supplement to vol. I, part II, p. 1-92.
Hall, J., 1866, Descriptions of new species of Crinoidea and other fossils from the Lower
Silurian strata of the age of the Hudson-River Group and Trenton Limestone: Albany,
privately distributed reprint,17 p.
204
Hays, B., Rouse, G., Thomas, J., and Messing, C., 2015. Can morphology support new
molecular phylogenies of Antedonidae (Crinoidea: Comatulida)?: 15th
International Echinoderm Conference Abstracts, p. 41–42.
Hemery, L.G., Roux, M., Ameziane, N., and Eleaume, M., 2013, High-resolution crinoid
phyletic inter-relationships derived from molecular data: Cahiers De Biologie
Marine, v. 54, p. 511–523.
Hess H., and Messing, C.G., 2011, Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology Part T,
Echinodermata 2, Revised, Crinoidea 3, in Ausich, W.I., coordinating author,
Seldon, P., ed., University of Kansas and Paleontological Institute, Lawrence,
Kansas, 216 p.
Hess, H., Ausich, W.I., Brett, C.E., and Simms, M.J., 1999, Fossil crinoids:
Cambridge University Press, 275 p.
Holtz, T.R., 1996, Phylogenetic taxonomy of the Coelurosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda):
Journal of Paleontology, v. 70, p. 536–538.
Holtz, T.R., 1998, A new phylogeny of the carnivorous dinosaurs: Gaia, v. 15, p. 5–61.
Jablonski, D., and Finarelli, J.A., 2009, Congruence of morphologically-defined genera
with molecular phylogenies: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v.
106, p. 8262–8266.
Jaekel, O., 1894, Über die Morphogenie und Phylogenic der Crinoiden: Sitzungsberichten der
Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde, Jahrgang 1894, v. 4, p. 101–121.
205
Jaekel, O., 1918, Phylogenie und System der Pelmatozoen: Paläeontologische Zeitschrift,
v. 3, p. 1–128.
Kammer, T.W., and Ausich, W.I., 1992, Advanced cladid crinoids from the Middle
Mississippian of the east-central United States. primitive-grade calyces: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 66, p. 461–480.
Kammer, T.W., and Ausich. W.I., 1996, Primitive cladid crinoids from upper Osagean-lower
Meramecian (Mississippian) rocks of east-central United States: Journal of Paleontology, v.
70, p. 835–866.
Kammer, T.W., and Gahn, F.J., 2003, Primitive cladid crinoids from the early Osagean
Burlington Limestone and the phylogenetics of Mississippian species of
Cyathocrinites: Journal of Paleontology, v. 77, p. 121–138.
Kammer, T.W., Sumrall, C.D., Zamora, S., Ausich, W.I., and Deline, B., 2013, Oral
region homologies in Paleozoic crinoids and other plesiomorphic pentaradiate
echinoderms: PLoS ONE, v. 8.11, e77989.
Kelley, P.H., Fastovsky, D.E., Wilson, M.A., Laws, R.A., and Raymond, A., 2013, From
paleontology to paleobiology: a half-century of progress in understanding life
history: Geological Society of America Special Paper, v. 500, p. 191–232.
Kelly, S.M., 1982, Origin of the crinoid orders Disparida and Cladida: possible inadunate
cup plate homologies: Third North American Paleontological Convention
(Montreal), Proceedings Abstracts, Montreal, Canada, p. 285–290.
206
Kelly, S.M., 1986, Classification and evolution of class Crinoidea: Fourth North
American Paleontological Convention, Abstracts, p. A23.
Kesling, R.V., and Paul, C.R.C., 1968, New species of Porocrinidae and brief remarks upon
these unusual crinoids: University of Michigan Contributions from Museum of
Paleontology, v. 22, p. 1–32.
Kirk, E., 1914, Notes on the fossil crinoid genus Homocrinus Hall. United States
National Museum Proceedings: v. 46, p. 473–483.
Kitazawa, K., Oji, T., and Sunamura, M., 2007, Food composition of crinoids (Crinoidea:
Echinodermata) in relation to stalk length and fan density: their paleoecological
implications: Marine Biology, v. 152, p. 959–968.
Kolata, D.R., 1982, Camerates, in Sprinkle, J., ed., Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide
Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma: The University of Kansas
Paleontological Contributions, Monograph, v. 1, p. 170–205.
Lahaye, M.C., and Jangoux, M., 1987, The skeleton of the stalked stages of the comatulid
crinoid Antedon bifida (Echinodermata): Zoomorphology, v. 107, p. 58–65.
Lane, N.G., 1978, Historical review of classification of Crinoidea, in Moore, R.C., and
Teichert, C., eds., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2,
Volume 2: Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press,
Lawrence, p. T348–T358.
Lee, M.S., and Palci, A., 2015, Morphological phylogenetics in the genomic age: Current
Biology, v. 25, p. R922–R929.
207
Le Menn, J., and Spjeldnaes, N., 1996, Un nouveau crinoïde Dimerocrinitidae (Camerata,
Diplobathrida) de l'Ordovicien supérieur du Maroc: Rosfacrinus robustus nov. gen., nov.
sp.: Geobios, v. 29, p. 341–351.
Leuckart, R. von, 1848, Uber de Morphologie und die Verandtschaftsverhältnisse der
wibellosen Thiere: Friedrich ,Vieweg and Sohn, Braunschweig, 180 p.
Matsumoto, H., 1929, Outline of a classification of Echinodermata: Science Reports of
the Tohoku Imperial University, Sendai, Japan, Second Series (Geology): v. 8, p.
27–33.
McIntosh, G.C., 1984, Devonian cladid inadunate crinoids: family Botryocrinidae Bather,
1899: Journal of Paleontology, v. 58, p. 1260–1281.
McIntosh, G.C., 1986, Phylogeny of the dicyclic inadunate crinoid order Cladida: Fourth
North American Paleontological Convention Abstracts A, v. 31.
McIntosh, G.C., 2001, Devonian cladid crinoids: families Glossocrinidae Goldring, 1923,
and Rutkowskicrinidae new family: Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 783–807.
Meek, F.B., 1873, Descriptions of invertebrate fossils of the Silurian and Devonian
systems: Ohio Geological Survey, v. 1, pt. 2, p. 1–243.
Meek, F., and Worthen, A.H., 1869, Descriptions of New Crinoidea and Echinoidea,
from the Carboniferous Rocks of the Western States, with a Note on the Genns
Onychaster: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v.
21, p. 67–83.
Messing, C.G., and White, C.M., 2001, A revision of the Zenometridae (new rank)
(Echinodermata, Crinoidea, Comatulidina): Zoologica Scripta, v. 30, p. 159–180. 208
Meyer, D. L., and Macurda, D.B., 1977, Adaptive radiation of the comatulid crinoids:
Paleobiology, v. 3, p. 74–82.
Miller, J.S., 1821, A Natural History of the Crinoidea, or Lily-Shaped Animals; with
Observations on the Genera, Asteria, Euryale, Comatula and Marsupites: Bristol,
C. Frost, 150 p.
Miller, S.A., 1883, The American Palaeozoic fossils: a catalogue of the genera and
species, with names of authors, dates, places of publication, groups of books in
which found, and the etymology and significance of the words, and an
introduction devoted to the stratigraphical geology of the Palaeozoic rocks, 2nd
edition, Echinodermata, Cincinnati, Ohio, p. 247-334.
Miller, S.A. and Gurley, W.F.E., 1894, New genera and species of Echinodermata:
Illinois State Museum of Natural History, v. 5, 53 p.
Miquel, J. 1894. Note sur la géologie des terrains primaires du département de l’Hérault.
Le Cambrien et l’Arenig: Bulletin de la Société d’étude des Sciences naturelles de
Béziers v. 17, p. 5–36.
Mooi, R., and David, B., 1998, Evolution within a bizarre phylum; homologies of the
first echinoderms: American Zoologist, v. 38, p. 965–974.
Mooi, R., and David, B., 2008, Radial symmetry, the anterior/posterior axis, and
echinoderm Hox genes: Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics,
v. 39, p. 43–62.
209
Moore, R.C., 1962, Ray structures of some inadunate crinoids. University of Kansas
Paleontological Contributions, v. 5, 1–47.
Moore, R.C., and Laudon, L.R., 1943, Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids:
Geological Society of America Special Paper, no. 46, 151 p.
Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds., 1978, Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T,
Echinodermata 2: Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press,
Lawrence, Kansas, 1027 p.
Moore, R. C., Lalicker, C.G., and Fischer, A.G., 1952, Invertebrate Fossils: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, 766 p.
Moore, R.C., Lane, N.G., and Strimple, H.L., 1978, Order Cladida Moore and Laudon,
1943, in Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds: Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2: Geological Society of America and
University of Kansas Press, Kansas, p. T578–T759.
Moore, R.C., Lane, N.G., Strimple, H.L., and Sprinkle, J., 1978, Systemetic Descriptions,
Crinoidea, Order Disparida, in Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds: Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2: Geological Society of
America and University of Kansas Press, Kansas, p. T520–T564.
Müller, J., 1841, Über die Gattungen und Arten der Comatulen: Archiv für
Naturgeschichte, v. 7, p. 179–189.
210
O’Malley, C.E., Ausich, W.I., and Chin, Y., 2016, Deep echinoderm phylogeny
preserved in organic molecules from Paleozoic fossils: Geology, v. 44, p. 379–
382.
Orbigny, A.D. d', 1849, Cours élémentaire de paléontologie et géologie Stratigraphiques:
v. 1, 299 p. Paris, Victor Masson.
Padian, K., Hutchinson, J.R., and Holtz, T.R., 1999, Phylogenetic definitions and
nomenclature of the major taxonomic categories of the carnivorous Dinosauria
(Theropoda): Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, v. 19, p. 69–80.
Parks, W.A., 1908, On an occurrence of Hybocystites in Ontario: Ottawa Naturalist, v.
21, p. 232– 236.
Paul, C.R.C., 1968, Macrocystella Callaway, the earliest glyptocystitid cystoid:
Palaeontology, v. 11, p. 580–600.
Paul, C.R.C., 1972, Cheirocystella antiqua gen. et sp. nov. from the Lower Ordovician of
western Utah and its bearing on the evolution of the Cheirocrinidae (Rhombifera:
Glyptocystitida): Brigham Young University Geology Studies, v. 19, p. 15–63.
Paul, C.R.C., 1988, The phylogeny of the cystoids, in Paul, C.R.C., and Smith, A.B., eds.,
Echinoderm phylogeny and evolutionary biology: Clarendon Press, Oxford, p.
199–213.
Paul, C.R.C., and Smith, A.B., 1984, The early radiation and phylogeny of echinoderms:
Biological Reviews v. 59, p. 443–481.
Pennant, T., 1777, The British Zoology (4th edition, volume 4): London, Warrington.
211
Peters, S.E., and Ausich, W.I., 2008, A sampling-adjusted macroevolutionary history for
Ordovician-Early Silurian crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 34, p. 104–116.
Phillips, J., 1836, Illustrations of the geology of Yorkshire, or a description of the strata
and organic remains, Pt. 2, The Mountain Limestone districts, 2nd edition:
London, John Murray, p. 203–208.
Phillips, J., 1841, Figures and descriptions of the Palaeozoic fossils of Cornwall, Devon,
and West Somerset; observed in the course of the ordinance geological survey of
that district: London, Longmans, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 232 p.
Pisani, D., Feuda, R., Peterson, and Smith, A.B., 2012, Resolving phylogenetic signal
from noise when divergence is rapid: A new look at the old problem of
echinoderm class relationships: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, v. 62, p.
27–34.
Potter, D., and Freudenstein, J.V., 2005, Character-based phylogenetic Linnaean
classification: taxa should be both ranked and monophyletic: Taxon, v. 54, p.
1033–1035.
Pyron, R.A., 2015, Post-molecular systematics and the future of phylogenetics: Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, v. 30, p. 394–389.
Rasmussen, H.W., 1978, Articulata, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, K. eds., Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology. Part T, Echinodermata 2, vol. 2: The Geological
Society of America, and University of Kansas Press, Boulder and Lawrence, p.
T813–T997.
212
Reich, A., Dunn, C., Akasaka, K., and Wessel, G., 2015, Phylogenomic analyses of
Echinodermata support the sister groups of Asterozoa and Echinozoa: PLoS ONE,
v. 10, e0119627.
Rouse, G.W., Jermiin, L.S., Wilson, N.G., Eeckhaut, I., Lanterbecq, D., Oji, T., Young,
C.M., Browning, T., Cisternas, P., Helgen, L.E., Stuckey, M., and Messing, C.G.,
2013, Fixed, free, and fixed: the fickle phylogeny of extant Crinoidea
(Echinodermata) and their Permian–Triassic origin: Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution v. 66, p. 161–181.
Rouse, G.W, Carvajal, J., Oji, T., and Messing, C.G., 2015, Further insights into extant
crinoid phylogeny from molecular sequence data: 15th International Echinoderm
Conference Abstracts, p. 67–68.
Roux, M., 1987, Evolutionary ecology and biogeography of recent stalked crinoids as a
model for the fossil record, in Jangoux, M., and Lawrence, J.M., eds., Echinoderm
studies, vol. 2: A. A. Balkma, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, p. 1–53.
Roux, M., Eleaume, M., Hemery, L.G., and Ameziane, N., 2013, When morphology
meets molecular data in crinoid phylogeny: a challenge: Cahiers de Biologie
Marine, v. 54, p. 541–548.
Ruta, M., Coates, M.I., and Quicke, D.L.J., 2003, Early tetrapod relationships revisited:
Biological Reviews, v. 78, p. 351–345.
Schuchert, C., 1900, On the Lower Silurian (Trenton) fauna of Baffin Land: Proceedings
of the U. S. National Museum, v. 22, p. 143–178.
213
Sereno, P.C., 1997, The origin and evolution of dinosaurs: Annual Review of Earth and
Planetary Sciences, v. 25, p. 235–489.
Sereno, P.C., 1999, Definitions in phylogenetic taxonomy: critique and rationale:
Systematic Biology, v. 48, p. 329–351.
Sereno, P.C., 2005, The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy: Systematic Biology, v.
54, p. 595–619.
Sereno, P.C., McAllister, S., and Brusatte, S.L., 2005, TaxonSearch: a relational database
for suprageneric taxa and phylogenetic definitions: PhyloInformatics, v. 8, p. 1–
21.
Sevastopulo, G.D., and Lane, N.G., 1988, Ontogeny and phylogeny of disparid crinoids,
in Paul, C.R.C., and Smith, A.B., eds, Echinoderm phylogeny and evolutionary
biology: Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 245–253.
Shibata, T.F., Sato, A., Oji, T., and Akasaka, K., 2008, Development and growth of the
feather star Oxycomantus japonicus to sexual maturity: Zoological Science, v. 25,
p. 1075–1083.
Sibley, C.G., 1994, On the phylogeny and classification of living birds: Journal of Avian
Biology, v. 25, p. 87–92.
Simms, M.J., 1988, The phylogeny of post-Palaeozoic crinoids, in Burke, R. D., P. V.
Mladenov, P. Lambert, and R. L. Parsley, eds, Echinoderm Biology: Balkema,
Rotterdam, p. 97–102.
214
Simms, M.J., and Sevastopulo, G.D., 1993, The origin of articulate crinoids:
Palaeontology, v. 36, p. 91–109.
Simpson, G.G., 1944, Tempo and Mode in Evolution: Columbia University Press, New
York.
Siverts-Doreck, H. 1953. Sous-classe 4. Articulata, p. 756–765. In J. Priveteau (ed.),
Traité de paléontologie. Volume 3. Masson and Cie, Paris.
Smith, A.B., 1984, Classification of the Echinodermata: Palaeontology, v. 27, p. 431–
459.
Smith, A.B., 1985, Cambrian eleutherozoan echinoderms and the early diversification of
edrioasteroids: Palaeontology, v. 28, p. 87–89.
Smith, A.B., 1988, Patterns of diversification and extinction in early Palaeozoic
echinoderms: Palaeontology, v. 31, p. 799–828.
Smith, A.B., 1990, Evolutionary diversification of the echinoderms during the Early
Paleozoic: Systematics Association, Special Volume 42, p. 256–286.
Smith, A.B., 1994, Systematics and the Fossil Record: Documenting Evolutionary
Patterns: Blackwell Science, Oxford, 223 p.
Smith, A.B., 2005, The pre‐radial history of echinoderms: Geological Journal, v. 40, p.
255-280.
Smith, A.B., 2008, Duterostomes in a twist: the origins of a radical new body plan:
Evolution and Development, v. 10, p. 493–503.
215
Smith, A.B., and Jell, P.A., 1990, Cambrian edrioasteroids from Australia and the origin
of starfishes: Queensland Museum Memoir, v. 28, p. 715–778.
Smith, A.B., and Zamora, S., 2013, Cambrian spiral-plated echinoderms from Gondwana
reveal the earliest pentaradial body plan: Proceedings of the Royal Society B, v.
280:20131197, doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1197
Soul, L.C., and Friedman, M., 2015, Taxonomy and phylogeny can yield comparable
results in comparative paleontological analyses: Systematic Biology, v. 64, p.
608–620.
Springer, F., 1911, On a Trenton echinoderm fauna: Canada Department Mines Memoir
no. 15-P, 70 p.
Springer, F., 1913, Crinoidea, in Zittel, K.A. von, ed., Text-book of paleontology
(translated and edited by C. R. Eastman), 2nd edit: London, Macmillan & Co.,
Ltd., v. 1, p. 173–243.
Springer, F., 1920, The Crinoidea Flexibilia: Smithsonian Institution Publication no.
2501, 486 p.
Sprinkle, J., 1973, Morphology and evolution of blastozoan echinoderms: Museum of
Comparative Zoology Special Publication, Harvard University, 283 p.
Sprinkle, J., 1976, Classification and phylogeny of “pelmatozoan” echinoderms:
Systematic Zoology, v. 25, p. 83–91.
216
Sprinkle, J., 1982a, Hybocrinus, in Sprinkle, J., ed., Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide
Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma: The University of Kansas Paleontological
Contributions, Monograph 1, p. 119–128.
Sprinkle, J., 1982b, Cylindrical and globular rhombiferans, in Sprinkle, J., ed., Echinoderm
faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma: The University
of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1, p. 231–273.
Sprinkle, J., and Moore, 1978, Hybocrinida, in Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds:
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2: Geological Society
of America and University of Kansas Press, Kansas, p. T564–T574.
Stukalina, G.A., 1980, New species of quadrilaterial from the Ordovician of Kazakhstan,
Urals, and eastern European platform, in Stukalina, G.A., ed., New species of
ancient plants and invertebrates of the USSR, 5: Akademiia Natik SSSR,
Paleontologischeskii Institut. Moscow. p. 88-95.
Summers, M.M., Messing, C.G., and Rouse, G.W., 2014, Phylogeny of Comatulidae
(Echinodermata: Crinoidea: Comatulida): a new classification and an assessment
of morphological characters for crinoid taxonomy: Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution, v. 80, p. 319–339.
Sumrall, C.D., 1997, The role of fossils in phylogenetic reconstructions of the
Echinodermata: Paleontological Society Papers, v. 3, p. 267–288.
Sumrall, C.D., 2008, The origin of Lovéns Law in glyptocystitoid rhombiferans and its
bearing on plate homology and heterochronic evolution of the hemicosmitoid
217
peristomial border, in Ausich, W.I., and Webster, G.D., eds., Echinoderm
Paleobiology: Indiana University Press, Bloomington, p. 28–41.
Sumrall, C.D., 2010, A model for elemental homology for the peristome and ambulacra
in blastozoan echinoderms, in Harris, L.G., Bottger, S.A., Walker, C.W., and
Lesser, M.P., eds., Echinoderms: Durham, CRC Press, New York, p. 269–276.
Sumrall, C.D., 2014, Echinoderm phylogeny – the path forward: Geological Society of
America Abstracts with Programs, v. 46, p. 78.
Sumrall, C.D., and Waters, J.A., 2012, Universal Elemental Homology in
glyptocystitoids, hemicosmitoids, coronoids, and blastoids: steps toward
echinoderm phylogenetic reconstruction in derived blastozoans: Journal of
Paleontology, v, 68, p. 956–972.
Sumrall, C.D., and Wray, G.A., 2007, Ontogeny in the fossil record: diversification of
body plans and the evolution of "abberant" symmetry in Paleozoic echinoderms:
Paleobiology, v. 33, p. 149–163.
Telford, M.J., Low, C.J., Cameron, C.B., Ortega-Martinez, O., Aronowicz, J., Oliveri, P.,
and Copley, R.R., 2014, Phylogenetic analysis of echinoderm class relationships
supports Asterozoa: Proceedings of the Royal Society B, v. 281, 20140479.
Ubaghs, G., 1963, Rhopalocystis destombesi n. g., n. sp. Eocrinoide de l’Ordovicien
inferieur (Tremadocien superieur) du Sud marocain: Notes du service geologic du
Maroc, v. 23, p. 25–44.
218
Ubaghs, G., 1978, Origin of crinoids, in Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds, Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata, v. 2 (2): Geological Society of
America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, p. T275–T281.
Ulrich, E.O., 1925, The lead, zinc, and fluorspar deposits of Western Kentucky; Chapter
2, Stratigraphic geology: U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 36, p. 22‒
71.
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F., 1880–1886, Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Pt. I. The
families Ichthyocrinidae and Cyathocrinidae (1880), p. 226‒378 (separate repaged
p. 1–153). Pt. II. Family Sphaeroidocrinidae, with the sub-families Platycrinidae,
Rhodocrinidae, and Actinocrinidae (1881), p. 177‒411 (separate repaged, p. 1‒
237). Pt. III, Sec. 1. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate
crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions (1885), p. 225‒364 (separate
repaged, 1‒138). Pt. III, Sec. 2. Discussion of the classification and relations of
the brachiate crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions (1886), p. 64‒
226 (separate repaged to continue with section 1, 139‒302).
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F., 1891, The perisomic plates of the crinoids: Proceedings
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v. 41, p. 345–39.
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F., 1897, The North American Crinoidea Camerata:
Harvard College Museum of Comparative Zoology Memoir, v. 20 and 21, 897 p.
219
Webster, G.D., and Jell, P.A., 1999, New Permian crinoids from Australia: Memoirs of
the Queensland Museum, v. 33, p. 349–359.
Webster, G.D., and Lane, N.G., 2007, New Permian crinoids from the Battleship Wash patch
reef in southern Nevada: Journal of Paleontology, v. 81, p. 951–965.
Wetherby, A.G., 1880, Remarks on the Trenton Limestone of Kentucky, with
descriptions of new fossils from that formation and the Kaskaskia (Chester)
Group, Sub-carboniferous: Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, v.
3, p. 144–160.
White, C. A., 1881, Fossils of the Indiana rocks: Indiana Department of Statistics and
Geology, Annual Report, v. 2, p. 471–522.
Wiley, E.O., and Lieberman, B.S., 2011, Phylogenetics: theory and practice of
phylogenetic systematics: John Wiley & Sons, 406 p.
Wright, D.F., 2015a, Fossils, homology, and “Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny”: a
reassessment of primary posterior plate homologies among fossil and living
crinoids with insight from developmental biology: Paleobiology, v. 41, p. 570–
591.
Wright, D.F., 2015b, Testing the taxonomic structure of Paleozoic pan-cladid crinoids: a
statistical approach using the fossilized birth-death process and Bayesian
phylogenetic inference: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs,
v. 7, p. 854.
220
Wright, D.F., in press, Bayesian estimation of fossil phylogenies and the evolution of
early to middle Paleozoic crinoids (Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology.
Wright, D.F., and Ausich, 2015, W.I., From the stem to the crown: phylogeny and
diversification of pan-cladid crinoids, in Zamora, S. and Rábano, I., eds., Progress
in Echinoderm Paleobiology: Cuadernos del museo Geominero, 19, Instituto
Geológico y Minero de España, p. 199–202.
Zamora, S., 2013, Morphology and phylogenetic interpretation of a new Cambrian
edrioasteroid (Echinodermata) from Spain: Palaeontology, v. 56, p. 421–431.
Zamora, S., and Rahman, I.A., 2014, Deciphering the early evolution of echinoderms
with Cambrian fossils: Palaeontology, v. 57, p. 1105–1119.
Zamora, S., and Smith, A.B., 2011, Cambrian stalked echinoderms show unexpected
plasticity of arm construction: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, rspb20110777.
Zamora, S., Sumrall, C.D., and Vizcaino, D., 2013, Morphology and ontogeny of the
Cambrian edrioasteroid echinoderm Cambraster cannati from western
Gondwana: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, v. 58, p. 545-559.
Zamora, S., Sumrall, C.D., Zhu, X., Lefebvre, B., 2016, A new stemmed echinoderm
from the Furongian of China and the origin of Glyptocystitida (Blastozoa,
Echinodermata): Geological Magazine, doi:10.1017/S001675681600011X.
Zittel, K.A., von, 1895, Grundzüge der Palaeontologie (Palaeozoologie), 1st edition: R.
Oldenbourg, München, 971 p.
221
Table 4.1 Species name, least inclusive clade, and first appearances interval for each taxon depicted in Figure 4.1.
222
Least Inclusive Species First Occurrence of Species Clade Actinocrinites triacontadactylus Miller, 1821 Monobathrida Mississippian (Tournaisian) Adelphicrinus fortuitus Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003 Camerata Ordovician (Tremadocian) Alphacrinus mansfieldi Guensburg, 2010 Disparida Ordovician (Tremadocian) Antedon bifida (Pennant, 1777) Articulata Recent Apektocrinus ubaghsi Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2009 Pentacrinoidea Ordovician (Tremadocian) Archaeocrinus lacunosus (Billings, 1857) Diplobathrida Ordovician (Katian) Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857 Porocrinida Ordovician (Sanbian) Cupulocrinus heterocostalis (Hall, 1847) Flexibilia Ordovician (Katian) Dendrocrinus longidactylus Hall, 1852 Eucladida Silurian (Wenlockian) Endoxocrinus parrae (Gervais, 1835) Articulata Recent Eknomocrinus wahwahensis Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003 Camerata Ordovician (Tremadocian) Glyptocrinus decadactylus Hall, 1847 Monobathrida Ordovician (Katian) Hybocrinus conicus Billings, 1857 Hybocrinida Ordovician (Sanbian) Hybocystites problematicus Wetherby, 1880 Hybocrinida Ordovician (Katian) Pentacrinites fossilis Blumenbach, 1804 Articulata Triassic (Anisian) Porocrinus conicus Billings, 1857 Porocrinida Ordovician (Katian) Rhodocrinites verus Miller, 1821 Diplobathrida Mississippian (Tournaisian) Rosfacrinus robustus LeMenn and Spjeldnaes, 1996 Eucamerata Ordovician (Katian) Synbathocrinus conicus Phillips, 1836 Disparida Mississippian (Tournaisian) Taxocrinus macrodactylus (Phillips, 1841) Flexibilia Devonian (Famennian)
Table 4.1
223
Table 4.2 Revised rank-based classification of the Crinoidea. † indicates an extinct taxon.
224
Class Crinoidea Miller, 1821
†Subclass Camerata Wachsmuth and Springer, 1885
‘Stem eucamerates’ (e.g., Eknomocrinus)
Infraclass Eucamerata Cole, in press
Order Diplobathrida Moore and Laudon, 1943
Order Monobathrida Moore and Laudon, 1943
Crinoidea incertae sedis: †Protocrinoidea Guensburg and Sprinkle, 2003
Subclass Pentacrinoidea Jaekel, 1894
†‘Stem inadunates’ (e.g., Apektocrinus)
Infraclass Inadunata Wachsmuth and Springer, 1885
†Parvclass Disparida Moore and Laudon, 1943
Order Eustenocrinida Ulrich, 1925
Order Maennilicrinida Ausich, 1998b
Order Tetragonocrinida Stukalina, 1980
Order Calceocrinida Meek and Worthen, 1869
Disparida incertae sedis: “Homocrinida” Kirk, 1914
Disparida incertae sedis: “Myelodactyla” S. A. Miller, 1883
Disparida incertae sedis: “Pisocrinoidea” Ausich and Copper, 2010
Parvclass Cladida Moore and Laudon, 1943
†Superorder Porocrinoidea Wright, in press
Order Porocrinida Miller and Gurley, 1894
Continued
225
Table 4.2 continued
Order Hybocrinida Jaekel, 1918
†Superorder Flexibilia Zittel, 1895 (Cupulocrinus d’Orbigny, 1849)
Order Taxocrinida Springer, 1913
Order Sagenocrinida Springer, 1913
Magnorder Eucladida Wright, in press
†Superorder Cyathoformes new superorder
Cyathoformes incertae sedis: “Cyathocrinida” Bather, 1899
Cyathoformes incertae sedis: “Dendrocrinida” Bather, 1899
Cyathoformes incertae sedis: “Poteriocrinida” Jaekel, 1918
Eucladida incertae sedis: †“Ampelocrinida” Webster and Jell, 1999
Superorder Articulata Miller, 1821
†Order Holocrinida Jaekel, 1918 Rasmussen, 1978
†Order Encrinida Matsumoto, 1929
†Order Millericrinida Sieverts-Doreck, 1953
†Order Uintacrinida Zittel 1879
†Order Roveacrinida Sieverts-Doreck, 1953
Order Cyrtocrinida Sieverts-Doreck, 1953
Order Hyocrinida Rasmussen, 1978
Order Isocrinida Sieverts-Doreck, 1953
Order Comatulida A. H. Clark, 1908
226
Figure 4.1 Taxa representing major crinoid clades: (1) Pentacrinites fossilis
Blumenbach, 1804, articulate, from Goldfuss (1831); (2) Taxocrinus colletti White, 1881, flexible, from Springer (1920); (3) Actinocrinites jugosus (Hall, 1859), monobathrid camerate, from Wachsmuth and Springer, 1897; (4) Synbathocrinus swallovi Hall, 1858, disparid, from Wachsmuth and Springer (1897); (5) Dendrocrinus caduceus Hall, 1866, eucladid, from Meek (1873); (6) Hybocystites eldonensis Parks, 1908, hybocrinid, from
Springer (1911); (7) Porocrinus shawi Schuchert, 1900, porocrinid, from Kesling and
Paul (1968); (8) Archaeocrinus microbasalis (Billings, 1857), diplobathrid camerate, from Wachsmuth and Springer (1897). All scale bars 0.5 cm and applicable as indicated.
227
Fig. 4.1
228
Figure 4.2 Cladogram depicting phylogenetic relationships among species used to define major clades within the Crinoidea. Terminal tips correspond to species listed in
Table 1. Clades given stem-based definitions are indicated with a downward facing arrow, whereas clades given node-based definitions are indicated with a circle. Note that many clades named are nested inside other more inclusive clades. Graphical notation of stem- and node-defined clades follows Sereno (2005).
229
Fig. 4.2
230
Chapter 5: Ecologic innovation and phenotypic constraint in the evolutionary radiation of
Paleozoic crinoids
Abstract.—Evolutionary radiations are one of the most discussed features in the history of life. The patterns and processes underlying phenotypic diversification during such radiations have been much debated by both paleontologists and comparative biologists. In this chapter, I take advantage of recently developed methods to test the relationships between phylogeny-based rates of morphologic evolution, taxonomic diversification, and morphospace occupation in the ~200 million year evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic crinoids. Focusing on the Eucladida,
I find evidence for highly heterogeneous evolutionary dynamics, including variation in morphologic rates and shifts in evolutionary mode. The early history of eucladid diversification is characterized by “early burst” dynamics, but a late Paleozoic peak in morphologic rates is not associated with the diversification of a rapidly radiating subclade. Instead, the late peak in rates likely involved multiple smaller radiations linked to ecologic change. Results indicate phenotypic diversification is more complex than models commonly assumed in comparative biology, at least over geologic timescales—highlighting the need for continued synthesis between fossil and phylogenetic approaches to macroevolution.
231
Introduction
“How fast, as a matter of fact, do animals evolve in nature?” –G.G. Simpson (1944)
It is often stated that the major features of Earth’s biodiversity are the result of successive evolutionary radiations spanning the geologic history of life (Simpson, 1953). Adaptive radiation, a process whereby species rapidly diverge from a common ancestor and increase in phenotypic disparity as a result of ecologic opportunity, is the most commonly invoked type of evolutionary radiation and is backed by a rich theory and wealth of empirical case studies (Simpson, 1953; Schluter, 2000; Erwin, 2007; Losos, 2010).
Adaptive radiation theory predicts that rates of phenotypic evolution are initially high during the early stages of radiation, such as when a lineage enters a new adaptive zone, but subsequently decline as a clade ages because niche space becomes saturated
(Simpson, 1953; Schluter, 2000). A corollary of this prediction is that variation in morphologic disparity should peak early in a clade’s history. A possible alternative explanation to adaptive radiation is that a clade may achieve early maximum disparity for reasons not related to ecologic opportunities, but because phenotypic diversification was later limited by developmental constraints or time-heterogeneous selective pressures
(Wagner, 1996, 2000; Erwin, 2007). Nevertheless, patterns of so-called “early burst”
(Harmon et al., 2010) diversifications are commonly observed in paleontologic data
(Foote, 1994, 1999; Erwin, 2007; Wagner, 2010; Hughes et al., 2013; Oyston et al.,
2015), and recent radiations of well-studied living clades are broadly consistent with 232
predictions from adaptive radiation theory (Baldwin and Sanderson, 1998; Grant and
Grant, 2002). In contrast with the fossil record, phylogenetic comparative data rarely
support the early burst model and instead suggest that instances of evolutionary radiation
are more frequently characterized either by patterns of constrained diversification around
an adaptive peak or random diffusion through morphospace (Harmon et al., 2010).
Although the lack of support for adaptive radiation in comparative data may reflect
difficulties in testing early burst models (Harmon et al., 2010; Slater et al., 2010; Slater
and Pennell, 2014), it nevertheless highlights the need to consider alternative models of
phenotypic diversification associated with evolutionary radiations (Erwin, 1992; Simões
et al., 2015) (Fig. 1).
For the last several decades, paleobiologists have tested conceptual models of radiation patterns by measuring temporal variation in morphologic disparity in fossil lineages (Foote, 1992, 1997; Erwin, 2007; Wagner, 2010). Disparity profiles are then compared with concomitant trends in taxonomic diversity to determine which alternative model best fits the observed trends (Foote, 1997; Jablonski, in press). A common assumption is that fluctuations in disparity primarily reflect underlying rates of morphologic change. Although this prodigious research program has generated important
insights into patterns of morphologic diversification (Wagner, 2010), such as whether the
high early disparity patterns observed in the fossil record are consistent with ecologic
processes or other mechanisms (Foote, 1997; Erwin, 2007), there are several causes for
concern as to whether or not disparity measures provide a general context for inferring
phenotypic rates of evolution. For example, alternative evolutionary processes with
233
strikingly different rates of morphologic evolution can yield equivocal disparity profiles
(Foote, 1996; Slater, 2015). Moreover, even under simple models of trait evolution, such
as Brownian motion, sister clades with different rate dynamics may theoretically obtain
identical disparities because of the way trait variation is partitioned among subclades
(O’Meara et al., 2006). Thus, assessing the rate of morphologic evolution requires the
explicit use of phylogenetic trees (Foote, 1996). When combined with time-calibrated
phylogenies, disparity estimates can more explicitly be used to test relationships between
rates of change and morphospace occupation (Wagner, 1997).
This chapter takes advantage of recently developed phylogeny-based methods to test two questions pertinent to how diversification trajectories unfold over geologic time.
Using the fossil record of Paleozoic eucladid crinoids (Echinodermata), I test whether their ~200 million year radiation exhibits temporal dynamics predicted by adaptive radiation theory. I then compare per-lineage-million-year rates of character change with patterns of morphospace occupation to test whether morphologic evolution was driven primarily by ecologic opportunities, innovation, or phenotypic constraints. The Eucladida
(Wright, in press) are a major clade of crinoids and provide a model system for addressing these questions. Eucladids are both ecologically and taxonomically diverse
(Webster, 2013), and are characterized by a well sampled fossil record (Foote and Raup,
1996; Foote and Sepkoski, 1999). Importantly, fossil crinoids preserve morphologic features useful for inferring evolutionary relationships from phenotypic data (Wright et al., in press) and their exoskeleton can be compared with living species to infer feeding ecology and life history (Ausich, 1980; Kitazawa et al., 2007; Kammer, 1985, 2008).
234
These features make fossil crinoids ideal for testing relationships between patterns of
morphologic diversification and adaptive zone occupation, as well as evaluating ecologic
differences among species shape evolutionary radiations over geologic timescales.
Results and Discussion
Rates of morphologic evolution for Ordovician through Permian eucladids were
calculated using 92 discrete morphologic traits spanning the entire eucladid body plan.
Two phylogeny-based methods were used. The first method divides the number of
character changes occurring within ~7 million year bins by the sum of within-bin branch
length durations and uses likelihood ratio tests to infer whether intervals are characterized
by statistically elevated or depressed rates. The second method estimates the median percent amount of character change per million years using a Bayesian relaxed morphologic clock model. Although recent work has illuminated phylogenetic relationships among crinoids (Ausich et al., 2015; Cole, in press; Wright, in press; Wright et al., in press), the phylogeny of Paleozoic eucladids remains elusive, and they have not received comprehensive systematic treatment since publication of the crinoid Treatise
(Moore et al., 1978). A phylogenetic analysis of a morphologic character matrix coded for 81 species did not recover any of the order-level taxa listed in the crinoid Treatise
(Moore et al., 1978). However, the validity of these orders has long been questioned and
results are broadly consistent with previous taxonomic recommendations (McIntosh,
235
1986, 2001; Sevastopulo and Lane, 1988; Simms and Sevastopulo, 1993; Kammer and
Ausich, 1992, 1993, 1996). The maximum clade credibility (MCC) tree resulting from of
a Bayesian analysis using a relaxed morphologic clock and a time-varying fossilized
birth-death process (FBD) tree prior is well resolved near the base of the tree, but
elsewhere characterized by low support (see Materials and Methods section). To account
for uncertainties in evolutionary relationships and divergence times, all rate analyses
were performed over random samples of time-calibrated trees from the Bayesian
posterior distribution.
Both maximum likelihood and morphologic-clock methods reveal major
fluctuations in the rate of morphologic evolution for eucladid crinoids across the
Paleozoic (Fig. 5.2). Morphologic rates for Paleozoic eucladids were at their highest early
in the clade’s history and exhibit a long-term secular decrease in mean rates of evolution
through time (Spearman’s Rho = -0.46, P = 0.022). The Late Ordovician to middle
Silurian is characterized by elevated rates of character change that are approximately
twice as high as most subsequent intervals of the Paleozoic. Rates significantly drop
during the Devonian, reaching their Paleozoic minimum during the Frasnian-Famennian stages. Although rates modestly increased during the early Carboniferous, they do not rise above background levels and are comparable to those of the late Silurian to early
Devonian. Rates were elevated throughout much of the late Carboniferous (Bashkirian-
Kasimovian), with a burst of morphologic evolution occurring during the Moscovian stage that resulted in the only significant post-Silurian peak in morphologic rates (Fig.
5.2). Although the early to middle Paleozoic radiation of eucladids is consistent with an
236
“early burst” type pattern, the episodic peak during the late Carboniferous suggests
morphologic diversification during the late Paleozoic was driven by different
evolutionary dynamics.
It is important to rule out possible biases that may influence these patterns
because variation in rate estimates can arise even when underlying rates of evolution are
constant. For example, elevated rates of evolution may be inferred simply because taxa
were more densely sampled and therefore more changes can be recorded. However, a
phylogeny-based diversity curve (Fig. 5.3, [lower figure]) shows a major peak during the
early Carboniferous, which is not associated with high rates of change. Similarly,
diversity was much lower during the Ordovician to middle Silurian than most of the
Paleozoic. A comparison of the phylogeny-based diversity of sampled lineages with the
number of all known valid eucladid genera reveals late Carboniferous eucladids are
proportionally undersampled in the dataset (Webster, 2013) (Fig. 5.3 [cf. middle and
lower figures]). Thus, the late Carboniferous peak in morphologic rates would be
expected to be even higher if species had been sampled in proportion to taxonomic
richness.
Sampling biases arising from incompleteness of the fossil record could also affect
rate estimates. Paleontologic metrics assuming uniform preservation (Foote and Raup,
1996) indicate sampling probabilities for Paleozoic eucladids are slightly higher than
estimates for all Ordovician to Devonian crinoid genera (per-interval preservation probability = 0.60, sampling rate = 0.12) (Foote and Raup, 1996) suggesting the eucladid record is ~92% complete when evaluated at the family level. Crinoids as a whole exhibit
237
different post-mortem disarticulation rates (Meyer et al., 1989), but patterns of
taphonomic degradation are similar within major clades such as the Eucladida (Ausich et
al., 1999). Thus, there is no a priori reason to suspect substantial variation in preservation
potential among taxa analyzed. However, non-uniform preservation of the rock record
itself may also influence paleontologic patterns, especially over geologically long
timescales (107-108 years) (Holland, 2016). A stochastic model of non-uniform sampling
was incorporated directly into the phylogenetic analysis and used to estimate time-
varying rates of fossil sampling (see Materials and Methods). Although sampling
fluctuated through time (Fig. 5.4C), there is a nonsignificant correlation between
sampling rate and inferred rates of character change (Spearman’s Rho = 0.155, P =
0.459). In summary, the inferred rates of morphologic evolution are robust to a number of
potential biases that may affect rate inferences, including variation in tree topology,
branch lengths, divergences times, and incomplete or non-uniform fossil sampling.
Other phylogeny-based disparity studies with paleontologic perspectives have suggested that bursts of morphologic change occurring after a clade’s early history are associated with major ecologic shifts and diversification of one or more subclades (Slater,
2012, 2015; Close et al., 2015; Hopkins and Smith, 2015). Feeding ecology is the primary control on niche differentiation among crinoids (Ausich, 1980; Kitazawa et al.,
2007). Crinoids are passive suspension feeders that depend on the current-driven nutrient supply to feed and have evolved a variety of ecomorphologic traits to help capture food particles and reduce competition among species (Ausich, 1980; Kitazawa et al., 2007;
Baumiller, 2008). Two eucladid subclades, cyathoform and cladoform crinoids (sensu
238
Kammer and Ausich, 1992, 1996; Webster, 2012), represent different functional groups and are each strongly supported as monophyletic (posterior probability = 1) (see
Materials and Methods) (Fig. 5.2). Although cyathoform and cladoform species often co- occur in the same paleocommunties (e.g., on the same bedding plane), they are characterized by traits reflecting adaptations to different ecologic and environmental conditions (Ausich, 1980; Kammer, 1985, 2008). Cladoform crinoids have terminal arm appendages called pinnules that serve to increase filtration fan density, which allows for feeding to take place at higher current velocities (Kammer, 1985). In addition, cladoforms have muscular appendages in the arms that increase motility and enable shifts in feeding posture (Kammer, 1985; Baumiller and Messing, 2007). In contrast with cladoforms, cyathoform crinoids almost universally lack pinnules and have ligamentary articulations with limited motility.
The early history of eucladid evolution predominantly reflects patterns of cyathoform diversification. The cyathoform subclade is characterized by deaccelerating rates through time (Spearman’s Rho = -0.930, P < 0.001) (Fig. 5.5), consistent with expectations of an early burst model. In contrast, variation in rates after the Devonian is most strongly associated with cladoforms. A small rise in rates is coincident with the gradual assembly of the cladoform body plan during the Devonian (Fig. 5.2), and rates of change within the subclade are higher early in their history than in subsequent intervals
(Fig. 5.5). However, long-term rates of change among cladoforms show no evidence for a secular trend (Spearman’s Rho = 0.042, P = 0.873), and the highest rates of evolution occur much later in their history (Fig. 5.5). Thus, rates of morphologic evolution
239 characterizing cladoform diversification do not support an early burst pattern of phenotypic diversification despite substantial ecomorphologic innovation.
Major trends in crinoid evolution have been attributed to long-term effects of biotic interactions and/or species ecology (Meyer and Macurda, 1977; Baumiller, 1993;
Ausich et al., 1994; Kammer and Ausich, 2006; Sallan et al., 2011; Gorzelak et al.,
2015). The pattern of shifting subclade contributions to the broader eucladid radiation is consistent with paleoecologic observations regarding ecologic abundance, taxonomic diversity, and turnover between these groups (Ausich et al., 1994). Thus, the ecologic differences between cladoform and cyathoform eucladids may have resulted in different macroevolutionary dynamics. Indeed, background rates of morphologic evolution are higher among cladoforms than cyathoforms (Mann-Whitney U test, W = 231, P < 0.001).
It is possible that higher rates in cladoform eucladids may have resulted from increased competition with other pinnulate crinoid clades (e.g., camerates) that share similar functional ecologic traits. However, eucladids and camerate crinoids broadly differ in their habit preferences (Kammer and Ausich, 2006), which suggests elevated rates of morphologic evolution in cladoform eucladids were driven by processes other than (or in addition to) competition. Similarly, the rate of adaptive phenotypic evolution is expected to be greater in clades experiencing increased predation pressure (Vermeij,
1987). Increased predator-prey dynamics have previously been linked with macroevolutionary patterns in Paleozoic crinoids (Signor and Brett, 1984; Sallan et al.,
2011), but a comparison of diversification trajectories found no significant relationship between eucladids and their probable vertebrate predators (Sallan et al., 2011). Lastly,
240
higher rates for cladoform eucladids may have resulted from environmental factors that
influence ecologic specialization, which has been linked with higher rates of evolution
(Vrba, 1987). Baumiller (1993) found evidence for higher rates of taxonomic
diversification for camerate crinoids with more finely-filtered fan morphologies and attributed the pattern to long-term stenotopic effects on diversification. Although cladoforms also have dense filtration fans, the evolution of muscular articulations in their arms facilitated a greater range of feeding postures that led to cladoforms being able to inhabit a broader range of environments than other crinoid lineages (Baumiller, 1993;
Holterhoff, 1997). Thus, stenotopy in eucladids is not easily equated with stenotopy in other crinoids. The concept of evolution occurring within adaptive zones (Simpson,
1953) provides a possible explanation. If cladoforms occupied a broader adaptive zone than cyathoforms, then evolution within subzones (Simpson, 1953) would lead to ecologic specialization and increased rates of phenotypic change in cladoform subclades.
A morphospace analysis of the complete character matrix shows disparity within cladoform eucladids is much greater than among cyathoforms (Fig. 5.6), especially when patterns of morphospace occupation are evaluated over time (Fig. 5.7). Cyathoform eucladids rapidly expanded in morphospace during their explosive Ordovician-Silurian radiation and reached their maximal disparity during the Silurian. Although cyathoforms continued to diversify throughout the Paleozoic, they never expanded into new regions of morphospace outside those that originally evolved during the early Paleozoic. Thus, the early history of cyathoform evolution is consistent with an early burst-type pattern and with expectations from adaptive radiation theory. However, their subsequent
241
diversification during the middle to late Paleozoic is more consistent with increased
constraints on morphologic evolution that limited expansion into previously unexplored
regions of morphospace.
In contrast, cladoform eucladids expanded in disparity during the Devonian and
reached peak morphologic diversity during the Mississippian, occupying vast regions of
morphospace spanning multiple Simpsonian subzones (Figs. 5.6-5.7). The distribution of
eucladids in morphospace was highly asymmetric during the Pennsylvanian, as the
advanced cladoform subzone became saturated and very few regions outside this zone
were occupied. However, the advanced cladoform cluster diminished in importance by
the Permian. Cyathoforms and intermediate zone cladoforms re-radiated into pre-
explored regions of morphospace, whereas extinction of closely spaced taxa occurred
within the advanced cladoform zone. The broad distribution in eucladids in morphospace
coupled with extinction of intermediate forms ultimately led to the Permian being the
time of maximal morphologic disparity in the Paleozoic radiation of eucladids (Fig. 5.3).
The preceeding discussion has focused on rates of morphologic evolution and
overall trends in morphospace occupation through time. However, most theoretical
models describing the dynamics of evolutionary radiations also make predictions about
patterns of taxonomic diversification (Rabosky and Adams, 2012; Jablonski, in press).
Taxonomic diversification is an exponential process, whereas morphologic
diversification is approximately linear under constant rate Brownian motion assumptions
(Foote, 1996). If taxonomic diversity is plotted on a log scale in diversity-disparity space, then exponential taxonomic diversification coupled within a Brownian motion-like
242
diffusion process for morphologic evolution would predict a linear fit between diversity
and disparity measures (Jablonski, in press).
The relationship between morphologic disparity and taxonomic diversity in the
radiation of Paleozoic eucladids is depicted in Figure 5.8. Diversity and disparity both
rapidly increase from the Ordovician through the Devonian and rise significantly above
the 1:1 diagonal (Fig. 5.3 (upper), Fig. 5.9). Likelihood ratio tests confirm that rates of
morphologic evolution were high throughout the Ordovician to early Silurian (Fig. 5.2),
with high rates accompanying the rapid expansion of cyathoform eucladids in
morphospace. When coupled with the concomitant rise in taxonomic diversity during this
interval, these patterns suggest the early history of eucladid radiation was characterized
by an early burst-like model of morphologic evolution and is consistent with adaptive
radiation theory. The end-Ordovician extinction dramatically altered the structure of
crinoid communities (Ausich et al., 2004), but it is not clear how the extinction may have
affected eucladid diversification. Net taxonomic diversification fell dramatically during
the end Ordovician (Fig. 5.4), but the overall diversity trajectory for eucladids shows a
nearly constant rate increase from the Ordovician through the end of the Silurian (Fig.
5.3). It is possible the end-Ordovician extinction played a role in sustaining rates of
morphologic evolution for such geologically long intervals. For example, the opening of
niche space that followed the end-Ordovician may have allowed their early Paleozoic radiation to continue in a protracted diversification. Alternatively, the extinction event may have led eucladids to undergo a post-extinction adaptive radiation and the observed
geologically sustained rates may reflect two contiguous diversification events.
243
Post-Silurian dynamics reveal more complex patterns. Despite significant expansion into new regions of morphospace that correspond to the initial radiation of cladoforms during the Devonian (Fig. 5.7), the rise in disparity was not accompanied by a significant increase in morphologic rates. Instead, rates of morphologic evolution do not differ significantly from background for much of the Devonian. Further, the Late
Devonian marks the only interval in eucladid diversification with evidence for significantly low rates of character change (Fig. 5.2). Thus, morphologic innovation associated with the assembly of the cladoform body plan did not result in an “early burst”-like peak corresponding with the origination of the clade (Hopkins and Smith,
2015). Instead, morphologic diversification from the Devonian to early Carboniferous is more similar to a Brownian motion-like process. Brownian motion diffusion through morphospace would be expected to result in increased disparity even if morphologic change was occurring at a low, constant rate. This suggests the Devonian increase in morphologic disparity should not be interpreted as high underlying rates of change, but instead as a fundamental shift in the underlying mode of evolution.
The early Carboniferous (Mississippian) features a dramatic increase in taxonomic diversity, marking the so-called “Age of Crinoids” (Kammer and Ausich,
2006) (Figs. 5.3, 5.8). Notably, taxonomic diversification among eucladids was most dramatic among cladoforms during this interval (Kammer and Ausich, 2006). The macroevolutionary lag (Jablonski, 2008) between the assembly of the cladoform body plan and subsequent taxonomic diversification may be explained, in part, by the late
Devonian global collapse of reefs. The demise of coral-stromatoporoid dominated reefs
244 facilitated a major environmental transition from abundant, more restricted rimmed carbonate platforms to widespread open ramp settings in epicontinental seas, resulting in a substantial increase in habitat space favorable for crinoids (Kammer and Ausich, 2006).
Global geographic expansion of eucladids during the Mississippian may have led to increased speciation propensity (Simões et al., 2015), resulting in a substantial net increase in taxonomic diversification (Kammer and Ausich, 2006). Although disparity slightly increased during the Mississippian, morphospace became more tightly clustered in cladoform zones. Rates of evolution may have continued to follow a Brownian motion- like process, but with an increasing role for constraint in morphologic diversification rather than unbounded diffusion in morphospace.
The rise in morphologic rates of evolution during the late Carboniferous
(Pennsylvanian) is coincident with a similar rise in taxonomic diversity (Figs. 5.2-5.3), culminating in both maximal genus-level diversity and the only post-Silurian rate peak supported by likelihood ratio tests during the Middle Pennsylvanian. However, the
Pennsylvanian did not exceed the Mississippian in net taxonomic diversification, which suggests the diversity peak is a result of increased taxonomic longevity rather than elevated origination (Fig. 5.4). Episodic, elevated rates can result from early burst like patterns of adaptive radiation within a single lineage (Hopkins and Smith, 2015; Slater,
2015). Examination of rates inferred on the MCC from the Bayesian morphologic clock analysis tree instead reveals multiple lineages were evolving at high rates during the
Pennsylvanian (Fig. 5.2). Interestingly, the Pennsylvanian is associated with an overall decrease in disparity despite the elevated rates of character change (Fig. 5.8).
245
Diversification during the Pennsylvanian was dominated by taxa within a narrow region
of morphospace contained within the advanced cladoform subzone (Fig. 5.7). The
centripetal direction of changes implied by the MCC phylomorphospace indicates
morphologic diversification was highly constrained within the cladoform subzone.
That multiple clades were rapidly evolving similar morphologies is suggestive of a shared response to similar ecologic or selective pressures. For example, Paleozoic eucladids exhibit a temporal trend in the calyx plates in pinnulate eucladids. This trend is best expressed in Carboniferous eucladids and is correlated with a reduction in body size
(Kammer, 2008). These trends may reflect an adaptive paedomorphic response to rapidly fluctuating environmental conditions and increased sediment disturbance (Kammer,
2008; Wright, 2015). Thus, morphologic evolution during the Pennsylvanian is suggestive of another major shift in underlying evolutionary mode. Constrained diversification within a limited, circumscribed region of morphospace is consistent with a macroevolutionary Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) model of morphologic evolution. Although phenotypic optima for an OU-like dynamic may have theoretically existed any time after
the advanced cladoform zone became available, the evolutionary attractor driving
bounded morphologic evolution during this interval was much stronger than any time
before or after the Pennsylvanian. This and other instances of replicate radiations within
Simpsonian subzones, such in fossil canids (Slater, 2015b), strongly suggests that
adaptive evolution may result in patterns of constrained phenotypic diversification during
instances of ecologic radiation (Erwin, 1992).
246
If these results can be generalized to apply to other clades, then the extreme heterogeneity observed in Paleozoic eucladid evolution strongly suggests that commonly used models of phenotypic diversification (Fig. 5.1) do not adequately capture the dynamics of evolutionary radiations, at least those occurring over long timescales. In addition, paleontologic inferences from studies of disparity through time may be misled if a strong relationship between rates of evolution and morphospace occupation is assumed.
Rather than dismay over challenges presented, I advocate that where possible, the data and methods of both fields be combined and synthesized to help better understand the pattern and process in macroevolutionary biology. This study highlights how integrating phylogeny-based estimates of morphologic evolution with traditional paleontologic measures of disparity provides a more nuanced understanding of phenotypic diversification, especially during major radiations spanning vast amounts of geologic time.
Materials and Methods
Morphologic and stratigraphic data
I compiled a data matrix of 92 morphologic characters for 81 species of Paleozoic eucladid crinoids and one outgroup (Appendix A). The majority of characters included overlap with Wright (in press), but I excluded any characters with invariant distributions among sampled taxa and included new characters (and character states) to accommodate
247 morphologic variation in middle to upper Paleozoic eucladids. The Eucladida (Wright, in press) range from the Ordovician (Katian) to the present (Wright et al., in press), and their Paleozoic fossil record includes more than 500 genera (Webster, 2013). To obtain an analytically tractable sample of species for analysis, representative species were chosen from nominal families (Moore et al., 1978; Webster, 2013) to capture broad taxonomic, morphologic, and preservational gradients among taxa. In most cases, species sampled were type species of a type genus. However, some geologically older species were sampled, especially when an older species was represented by more completely preserved specimens and was available for coding. All missing or inapplicable characters were coded as “?” (~20% of the cells). The mean number of unscored cells per taxon
(18.2%) and per character (16.5%) are both relatively low and similar to one another.
Thus, taxonomic and character-based biases introduced by missing data are likely minimal for this dataset. Notably, this dataset is more complete than comparable studies testing phylogeny-based rates of morphologic evolution over geologic timescales (e.g.
Close et al., 2015; Hopkins and Smith, 2015).
Although the character list was constructed primarily for use in phylogenetic analysis, it is also amenable for studying character-based morphologic disparity. A comparison of disparity metrics using cladistic matrices of discrete characters indicates cladistic data are often good proxies for summarizing morphologic variation
(Hetherington et al., 2015), and a number of empirical studies use cladistic matrices for testing general hypotheses of morphologic evolution (Close et al., 2015; Hopkins and
Smith, 2015; Lloyd, 2016). Autapomorphies are often excluded from phylogenetic
248
datasets because they are not parsimony-informative (i.e., they have the same length on
all trees), but are included in disparity studies because they contribute to the total
variation in morphologic form. However, this study includes parsimony-informative characters and a small number of autapomorphies. The inclusion of autapomorphies in model-based (i.e., probabilistic) phylogenetic analyses may improve phylogenetic inferences via more accurate estimation of branch lengths and rates of change (Lewis,
2001). Characters were coded by examining specimens housed in museum collections, including the Smithsonian Institution, Field Museum of Natural History, the Natural
History Museum (London), and the Lapworth Museum of Geology. Most species were coded using multiple specimens, such as types and paratypes in their type-series.
Additional data was collected by examining the primary taxonomic literature.
All numerical dates and names for geologic intervals are taken from the 2016
International Chronostratigraphic Chart (Cohen et al., 2013, updated). Stratigraphic data constraining species temporal ranges were obtained from an updated version of Webster
(2013). Most analyses consist of data binned to the stage-level and range from the
Ordovician (Katian) to Permian (either the Wordian or Wuchiapingian depending on the analysis). However, Silurian data was binned according to the series-level in an attempt to make the temporal duration between time bins more comparable and reduce difficulties in fine-scale stratigraphic correlation when assigning fossil occurrence dates (see
Webster, 2013). Following Cohen et al. (2013), the Carboniferous Period was subdivided into subperiods: the early Carboniferous (Mississippian) and late Carboniferous
(Pennsylvanian).
249
Phylogenetic analysis
To obtain a distribution of time-calibrated phylogenies, I used a Bayesian fossil tip-dating
approach as implemented in MrBayes 3.2.6 (Ronquist et al., 2012). A Markov model of
character evolution (Lewis, 2001) was used with character coding set to variable and a 4-
category gamma distribution was applied to account for rate variation among characters.
All characters were treated as unordered. Rate variation among lineages was estimated
using the uncorrelated, independent gamma rates (IGR) relaxed morphologic clock model
(Lepage et al., 2007), with a broad exponential hyperprior (λ = 10) on the variance of the
gamma distribution. A truncated Gaussian prior was placed on the base rate of the clock
(mean = 0.01, standard deviation = 0.1).
The time-varying (piecewise-constant) skyline implementation of the sampled
ancestor fossilized birth-death process (SA-FBD) was used as a prior distribution on
branch lengths (Heath et al., 2014; Gavryushkina et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016; Wright,
in press).Thus, SA-FBD parameters were estimated across broad geologic intervals,
corresponding to the Late Ordovician-Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, and the
Pennsylvanian-mid Permian. For each interval, SA-FBD parameters were assigned an exponential prior (λ = 10) on net diversification, a flat (Beta[1,1]) prior on relative extinction, and a Beta(2,2) distribution on fossil sampling. Because taxon sampling is highly incomplete at the species-level but broadly covers all major eucladid higher taxa, the diversified sampling correction of Zhang et al. (2016) was applied. The proportion of
‘extant’ species sampled at the end of the SA-FBD process was set to 0.008, which is
250 based on the assumption that middle to late Permian crinoid species diversity was at least as high as that of today (Donovan et al., 2016).
Bayesian fossil tip-dating requires information on the temporal ages and/or ranges of fossil samples (Gavryushkina et al., 2014; Wright, in press). Preliminary tip-dating analyses had difficulty converging (according to MrBayes diagnostics) when species occurrences were assigned uniform distributions according to the duration of their first appearing stages in Webster (2013). However, convergence was more easily reached when point occurrences were used. Because data is lacking for precise numerical estimates of species first-appearances (Webster, 2013), the mid-point of the time bin for each species’ first appearance was used as a point constraint on occurrence times. Based on both stratigraphic and phylogenetic evidence, the split between Eucladida and their nearest outgroup occurred during the earliest part of the Katian stage of the Ordovician
(Webster, 2013; Wright, in press). Thus, the tree age prior was set to correspond to an early Katian divergence.
To assist the analysis, a series of partial and hard topological constraints based on results of Wright (in press) were applied. Maximum parsimony and topology-only
Bayesian analyses (using PAUP* [Swofford, 2002] and MrBayes) were used to identify additional sets of taxa that could be constrained, and clades recovered by both analyses were given partial constraints. Two Markov chain Monte-Carlo runs with four chains were run for 30 million generations, sampling trees every 3000 steps. MCMC convergence was assessed using methods described in chapter 3 and 50% of the samples were discarded as burn-in, resulting in a posterior distribution of 5,000 time-calibrated
251
phylogenetic trees. The maximum clade credibility tree (MCC) depicting the posterior
probability of nodes and 95% highest density probability for divergences are presented in
Figure 5.2.
Rates of morphologic evolution
Rates of character change were inferred using two methods: a maximum-likelihood approach that estimates rates of character changes occurring along branches of time- calibrated trees (Lloyd et al., 2012), and a Bayesian relaxed morphologic clock analysis in MrBayes (Ronquist et al., 2012).
Lloyd et al. (2012) developed a novel approach to estimated rates of morphologic evolution in a likelihood framework that accounts for the effect of missing data, which was later refined by Brusatte et al. (2014) and Lloyd, 2016. This method models character changes as a Poisson process with a rate parameter (λi) and uses likelihood ratio
tests to identify intervals with significantly high or low rates of evolution. Ancestral
states at internal nodes are first estimated for all comparable characters from time-
calibrated phylogenies using maximum likelihood (Lloyd, 2016), and then rates of
morphologic evolution are calculated as the number of changes occurring along a branch
(i.e., number of parsimony steps) divided by the product of time (measured in millions of
years) and completeness (measured as the proportion of the observed comparable
characters). Following Lloyd et al. (2012), let Xi denote the number of character changes
th occurring in the i interval, ci is completeness, and ti represents the temporal duration of a
252
time bin in millions of years. Thus, the probability of observing x character changes is
given as (Lloyd et al., 2012)
( ) P(X = x|λ ) = . i i −𝜆𝜆 𝑡𝑡 𝑐𝑐 ! 𝑥𝑥 𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝜆𝜆𝑖𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥
Likelihood ratio tests (LRT) are used to test whether λ for given time bin is significantly
high or lower than λ estimated from the remaining pooled bins. The significance level α
for LRTs was set to 0.01. The Benjamini-Hochberg test was used to correct for multiple comparisons and their associated type I errors (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995; Lloyd et al., 2012). Because the rates inferred from this method are sensitive to the tree topology and branch lengths, I calculated rates of evolution over a random sample of 100 trees from the Bayesian posterior distribution of time-calibrated trees. Thus, the results are robust across many alternative hypotheses of evolutionary relationships and node age estimates. If a time bin contained >55% of rate estimates with statistically significant
(i.e., P < 0.01) high or low values across the posterior sample of trees, it was regarded as having rates significantly different from background.
Rates inferred using a Bayesian relaxed morphologic clock were estimated in
MrBayes 3.2.6 (Ronquist et al., 2012) using the same prior distribution settings described above for phylogenetic analysis. To account for uncertainty, percent character changes per million years were obtained by taking the median values of rates sampled in the
Bayesian posterior distribution of trees. Time-calibrated branch lengths and rates of evolution are estimated simultaneously. It should be noted that recovery of time- 253
heterogeneous rate dynamics using this approach runs opposite of methodological biases
because it assumes morphologic evolution can be fit to a clock-like model (Lloyd, 2016).
Standing diversity and diversification rates
Taxonomic diversity and taxonomic rates of origination and extinction were
estimated from data contained within a recently updated compilation of 505 genus-level eucladid occurrences spanning the Paleozoic (Webster, 2013). Where appropriate, I modified the data listed in Webster (2013) to update stratigraphic correlations and alpha taxonomy. Generic diversity was estimated using the first and last appearances recorded by Webster (2013) with the common range-through assumption (Foote and Miller, 2007).
Uncertainty in the number of genera occurring per bin was estimated using a Monte-
Carlo analysis consisting of 1,000 bootstrap replicates.
Per-capita rates of taxonomic diversification were estimated using equations
presented in Foote (2000) for tabulations of biostratigraphic ranges and is based on the
assumption of exponential survivorship (Raup, 1985). The extinction rate is calculated as
the proportion of taxa alive at the start of an interval that survived at least to the end of
the interval. Thus, the extinction rate is q = -ln[(Nbt) / (Nb)] / Δt, where q is the extinction
rate per-lineage-million years, Nbt is the number of taxa that cross both the beginning and end of the interval, Nb is the number of taxa that cross the bottom boundary, and Δt is the
temporal duration of the interval in units of 106 years. Similarly, the origination rate is
based on the proportion of taxa present at the end of an interval that already existed prior
to the beginning of the interval. The per-lineage-million year origination rate is calculated
254
as p = -ln[(Nbt) / (Nt)] / Δt, where p is the origination rate, Nt is the number of taxa
crossing the top boundary, and other terms are the same as described above. Net
taxonomic diversification per interval is simply p – q, and taxonomic turnover is q/p (Fig.
5.4). Although improved analytical methods exist to estimate standing diversity and
taxonomic diversification (e.g., Alroy, 2010, 2016), these approaches require detailed
information on fossil occurrences rather than tabulation of first and last appearances.
Discipline-based efforts to compile such data exist (e.g., paleobiodb.org). However, at
present these databases do not have sufficient taxonomic and temporal coverage to satisfy
the requisite data needed to implement occurrence-based approaches. Nevertheless, the
taxonomic rates presented herein represent estimates based on the most comprehensive,
taxonomically vetted dataset of eucladid crinoids ever compiled and stratigraphic range-
based methods often provide a good proxy for diversification dynamics (Foote, 2000;
Peters and Ausich, 2008).
In addition to taxonomic rates, the time-series of SA-FBD parameters estimated during phylogenetic analysis can also be used to infer diversification dynamics and compared with paleontologic estimates. These parameters are summarized in Figure 5.4.
Although differences exist between taxonomic and SA-FBD estimates (e.g., the SA-FBD represent coarse scale averages whereas the finer resolution taxonomic rates are subject to sampling biases [see Alroy, 2010]), broad pattern trajectories are similar when paleontologic estimates are averaged over timescales comparable with FBD estimates
(Fig. 5.4). For example, the median rate of taxonomic turnover for the Devonian Period is
0.73, which is close to the SA-FBD estimate of 0.71.
255
Phylogenetic standing diversity was calculated as the median diversity across 500
randomly sampled time-calibrated trees from the posterior distribution (Bapst, 2012).
Uncertainty around the median was characterized using two-tailed 95% upper and lower
quantiles (see Bapst, 2012).
Morphologic disparity and morphospace occupation
Morphologic disparity was calculated as the average squared distance between species in
morphospace, which is proportional to the multivariate variance for discrete characters
(Foote and Miller, 2007). All characters were unordered and equally weighted. Phenetic
distances between taxa (Sij) were calculated using Gower’s coefficient (Gower, 1971),
which rescales distances by the dividing by the number of comparable characters:
Sij = 𝑣𝑣 ∑𝑘𝑘=1 𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑣𝑣 ∑𝑘𝑘=1 𝛿𝛿𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
where δijk is equal to one if a character k can be coded for species i and j and otherwise equal to zero (Lloyd, 2016). Temporal variation in morphospace occupation was assessed by assigning taxa to period-level bins and calculating disparity for each interval.
Uncertainty in disparity estimates was evaluated using 1,000 bootstrap replicates.
To visually inspect morphospace distances between taxa in the complete dataset, a principal coordinate analysis (PCO) was conducted on the distance matrix. A phylomorphospace of the MCC tree was projected on species PCO scores distributed along the first two PCO axes, with ancestral state values inferred using maximum 256 likelihood (Revell, 2012) (Fig. 5.6). The first two PCO axes comprise 34.1% of the variance. Lower PCO 1 scores are associated with higher filtration fan densities, whereas higher scores are associated with lower filtration fan densities (Spearman’s Rho = -0.772,
P < 0.001). Fan density reflects the presence of pinnules, number of distal arms, and arm type (e.g., uniserial/biserial). PCO 2 is inversely proportional to calyx complexity, where calyx complexity is defined as the number of primary calyx plates in the cup. Taxa with fewer calyx plates have higher PCO 2 scores (Spearman’s Rho = -0.713, P < 0.001). The spatial distribution of taxonomic clusters in principal coordinate space (Fig. 5.6) closely corresponds with previously identified grades of body plan organization in eucladids
(Kammer and Ausich, 1992, 1993, 1996; Webster and Maples, 2006; Wright, 2015).
257
References
Alroy, J., 2010, Geographical, environmental and intrinsic biotic controls on Phanerozoic
marine diversification. Palaeontology, v. 53, p. 1211-1235.
Alroy, J., 2016, On a conservative Bayesian method of inferring extinction: Paleobiology,
v. 42, p. 670-679.
Ausich, W.I., 1980, A model for niche differentiation in Lower Mississippian crinoid
communities: Journal of Paleontology, v. 54, p. 273-288.
Ausich, W.I., Kammer, T.W., and Baumiller, T.K., 1994, Demise of the Middle
Paleozoic crinoid fauna: A single extinction event or rapid faunal turnover?:
Paleobiology, v. 20, p. 345‒361.
Ausich, W.I., Kammer, T.W., Rhenberg, E.C., and Wright, D.F., 2015, Early phylogeny
of crinoids within the pelmatozoan clade: Palaeontology, v. 58, p. 937–952.
Baldwin, B.G., and Sanderson, M.J., 1998, Age and rate of diversification of the
Hawaiian silversword alliance (Compostiae): Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, v. 95, p. 9402-9406.
Bapst, D.W., 2012, paleotree: an R package for paleontological and phylogenetic
analyses of evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution: v. 3, p. 803-807.
Baumiller, T.K., 1993, Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: effect of filter
morphology on evolutionary rates: Paleobiology, v. 19, p. 304-321.
Baumiller, T.K., 2008, Crinoid ecological morphology: Annual Review of Earth and
Planetary Sciences, v. 36, p. 221-249.
258
Baumiller, T.K., and Messing, C.G., 2007, Stalked crinoid locomotion and its ecological
and evolutionary implications: Palaeontologica Electronica, v. 10, 2A:10p.
Benjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y., 1995, Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical
and powerful approach to multiple test: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
Series B, v. 57, p. 289-300.
Brusatte, S.L., Lloyd, G.T., Wang, S.C., and Norell, M.A., 2014, Gradual assembly of
avian body plan culminated in rapid rates of evolution across the dinosaur-bird
transition: Current Biology, v. 24, p. 2386-2392.
Butler, M. A., and King, A.A., 2004, Phylogenetic Comparative Analysis: A Modeling
Approach for Adaptive Evolution: The American Naturalist, v. 164, p. 683-695.
Close, R.A., Friedman, M., Lloyd, G.T. and Benson, R.B., 2015, Evidence for a mid-
Jurassic adaptive radiation in mammals: Current Biology, v. 25, p. 2137‒2142.
Cohen, B.L., Ameziane, N., Eleaume, M., and de Forges, B.R., 2004, Crinoid phylogeny:
a preliminary analysis (Echinodermata: Crinoidea): Marine Biology, v. 144, p.
605–617.
Cole, S.R., in press, Phylogeny and morphologic evolution of the Ordovician Camerata
(Class Crinoidea, Phylum Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology.
Donovan, S.K., Webster, G.D., and Waters, J.A., 2016, A last peak in diversity: the
stalked echinoderms of the Permian of Timor: Geology Today, v. 32, p. 179-185.
Erwin, D.H., 1992, A preliminary classification of evolutionary radiations: Historical
Biology, v. 6, p. 133-147.
259
Erwin, D.H., 2007, Disparity: morphological pattern and developmental context:
Palaeontology, v. 50, p. 57-73.
Foote, M. 1992, Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: v. 89, p. 7325-7329.
Foote, M., 1994, Morphological disparity in Ordovician–Devonian crinoids and the early
saturation of morphological space: Paleobiology, v. 20, p. 320–344.
Foote, M., 1995, Morphological diversification of paleozoic crinoids: Paleobiology, v.
21, p. 273-299.
Foote, M., 1996, Ecological controls on the evolutionary recovery of post-Paleozoic
crinoids: Science, v. 274, p. 1492-1495.
Foote, M., 1997, Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability:
Paleobiology, v. 23, p. 278–300.
Foote, M., 1999, Morphological diversity in the evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic and
post-Paleozoic crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 25, p. 1–115.
Foote, M., 2000, Origination and extinction components of taxonomic diversity: general
problems: Paleobiology, v. 26, p. 74-102.
Foote and Miller, 2007, Principles of Paleontology. Macmillian.
Foote, M., and Raup, D.M., 1996, Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa:
Paleobiology, v. 22, p. 121–140.
Foote, M., and Sepkoski, J.J., 1999, Absolute measures of the completeness of the fossil
record: Nature, v. 398, p. 415–417.
260
Gavryushkina, A., Welch, D., Stadler, T., and Drummond, A. J., 2014, Bayesian
inference of sampled ancestor trees for epidemiology and fossil calibration: PLoS
Computational Biology, v. 10, e1003919.
Gorzelak, P., Salamon, M.A., Trzęsiok, D., Lach, R., and Baumiller, T.K., 2015,
Diversity dynamics of post‐Palaeozoic crinoids–in quest of the factors affecting
crinoid macroevolution: Lethaia, v. 49, p. 231–244.
Gower, J.C., 1971, A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties:
Biometrics, v. 27, p. 857-871.
Grant, P.R., and Grant,B.R., 2002, Adaptive radiation of Darwin’s finches: American
Journal of Science, v. 90, p. 130-139.
Harmon, L. J., J. B. Losos, T. J. Davies, R. G. Gillespie, J. L. Gittleman, W. B. Jennings,
K. H. Kozak, M. A. McPeek, F. Morena-Roark, T. J. Near, A. Purvis, R. E.
Ricklefs, D. Schluter, J. A. Schulte II, O. Seehausen, B. L. Sidlauskas, O. Torres-
Carvajal, J. T. Weir, and A. Ø. Mooers. 2010. Early bursts of body size and shape
evolution are rate in comparative data: Evolution, v. 64, p. 2385-2396.
Heath, T.A., Huelsenbeck, J.P. and Stadler, T., 2014, The fossilized birth–death process
for coherent calibration of divergence-time estimates: Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, v. 111, p. E2957–E2966.
Hetherington, A.J., Sherratt, E., Ruta, M., Wilkinson, M., Deline, B., and Donoghue,
P.C., 2015, Do cladistic and morphometric data capture common patterns of
morphological disparity?: Palaeontology, v. 58, p. 393-399
261
Holland, S.M., 2016, The non-uniformity of fossil preservation: Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B, v. 371, 20150130.
Holterhoff, P.F., 1997, Filtration models, guilds, and biofacies: Crinoid paleoecology of
the Stanton Formation (Upper Pennsylvanian), midcontinent, North America:
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 130, p. 177-208.
Hopkins, M.J. and Smith, A.B., 2015, Dynamic evolutionary change in post-Paleozoic
echinoids and the importance of scale when interpreting changes in rates of
evolution: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 112, p.3758–
3763.
Hughes, M., Gerber, S., and Wills, M.A., 2013, Clades reach highest morphological
disparity early in their evolution: Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, v. 110, p. 13875-13879.
Jablonski, D., 2008, Biotic interactions and macroevolution: extensions and mismatches
across scales and levels: Evolution, v. 62, p. 715-739.
Jablonski, in press, Macroevolutionary theory, in Scheiner, S.M., and Mindell, D.P.,
(eds.), The theory of evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kammer, T.W., Aerosol filtration theory applied to Mississippian deltaic crinoids:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 59, p. 551-560.
Kammer, T.W. 2008, Paedomorphosis as an adaptive response in pinnulate cladid
crinoids from the Burlington Limestone (Mississippian, Osagean) of the
Mississippi Valley. Pp. 177-195 in W. I. Ausich and G. D. Webster (eds.),
Echinoderm Paleobiology, University of Indiana Press, Bloomington.
262
Kammer, T.W., and Ausich, W.I., 1992, Advanced cladid crinoids from the Middle
Mississippian of the east-central United States. primitive-grade calyces: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 66, p. 461-480.Kammer and Ausich, 1993
Kammer, T.W., and Ausich. W.I., 1996, Primitive cladid crinoids from upper Osagean-lower
Meramecian (Mississippian) rocks of east-central United States: Journal of Paleontology, v.
70, p. 835-866.
Kammer, T.W., and Ausich, W.I., 1992, The “age of crinoids”: a Mississippian
biodiversity spike coincident with widespread carbonate ramps. Palaios, v. 2, p. 238-
248.
Kitazawa, K., Oji, T., and Sunamura, M., 2007, Food composition of crinoids (Crinoidea:
Echinodermata) in relation to stalk length and fan density: their paleoecological
implications: Marine Biology, v. 152, p. 959-968.
Lepage, T., Bryant, D., Philippe, H. and Lartillot, N., 2007, A general comparison of
relaxed molecular clock models: Molecular Biology and Evolution, v. 24, p.
2669‒2680.
Lewis, P.O., 2001, A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete
morphological character data: Systematic biology, v. 50, p. 913‒925.
Lloyd, G.T., 2016, Estimating morphological diversity and tempo with discrete character-
taxon matrices: implementation, challenges, progress, and future directions:
Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, v. 118, p. 131-151.
263
Lloyd, G.T., Wang, S.C. and Brusatte, S.L., 2012, Identifying heterogeneity in rates of
morphological evolution: discrete character change in the evolution of lungfish
(Sarcopterygii; Dipnoi): Evolution, v. 66, p.330‒348.
Losos, J.B., 2010, Adaptive radiation, ecological opportunity, and evolutionary
determinism: The American Naturalist, v. 175, p. 623-639.
McIntosh, G.C., 1986, Phylogeny of the dicyclic inadunate crinoid order Cladida: Fourth
North American Paleontological Convention Abstracts A, v. 31.
McIntosh, G.C., 2001, Devonian cladid crinoids: families Glossocrinidae Goldring, 1923,
and Rutkowskicrinidae new family: Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 783–807.
Meyer, D.L., and Macurda, B.D., 1977, Adaptive radiation of the comatulid crinoids:
Paleobiology, v. 3, p. 74–82.
Meyer, D.L., Ausich, W.I., and Terry, R.E., 1989, Comparative taphonomy of
echinoderms in carbonate facies: Fort Payne Formation (Lower Mississippian) of
Kentucky and Tennessee: Palaios, v. 4, p. 533-552.
Moore, R. C., Lane, N. G., and Strimple, H. L., 1978, Order Cladida Moore and Laudon,
1943, in Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds: Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2: Geological Society of America and
University of Kansas Press, Kansas, p. T578–T759.
O'Meara, B.C., C. Ané, M. J. Sanderson, P. C. Wainwright, and T. Hansen. 2006, Testing
for Different Rates of Continuous Trait Evolution Using Likelihood. Evolution, v.
60, p. 922-933.
264
Oyston, J.W., Hughes, M., Wagner, P.J., Gerber, S., and Wills, M.A., 2015, What limits
the morphological disparity of clades?: Interface Focus, v. 5, 20150042, 18 p.
Peters, S.E., and Ausich, W.I., 2008, A sampling-adjusted macroevolutionary history for
Ordovician-Early Silurian crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 34, p. 104‒116.
Rabosky, D.L., and Adams, D.C., 2012, Rates of morphological evolution are correlated
with species richness in salamanders: Evolution, v. 66, p. 1807-1818.
Raup, D. M., 1985, Mathematical models of cladogenesis: Paleobiology, v. 11, p. 42–52.
Revell, Liam J. "phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other
things)." Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3, no. 2 (2012): 217-223.
Ronquist, F., Klopfstein, S., Vilhelmsen, L., Schulmeister, S., Murray, D.L. and
Rasnitsyn, A.P., 2012, A total-evidence approach to dating with fossils, applied to
the early radiation of the Hymenoptera: Systematic Biology, v. 61, p. 973–999.
Sallan, L.C., Kammer, T.W., Ausich, W.I., and Cook, L.A., 2011, Persistent predator-
prey dynamics revealed by mass extinction: Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science, v. 108, p. 8335–8338.
Schluter, D., 2000, The ecology of adaptive radiation. OUP Oxford.
Sevastopulo, G.D., and Lane, N.G., 1988, Ontogeny and phylogeny of disparid crinoids,
in Paul, C.R.C., and Smith, A.B., eds, Echinoderm phylogeny and evolutionary
biology: Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 245–253.
Signor P.W., and Brett, C.E., 1984, The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine
revolution: Paleobiology, v. 10, p. 229-245.
265
Simms, M.J., and Sevastopulo, G.D., 1993, The origin of articulate crinoids:
Palaeontology, v. 36, p. 91–109.
Simões, M., Breitkreuz, L., Alvarado, M., Baca, S., Cooper, J.C., Heins, L., Herzog, K.
and Lieberman, B.S., 2016, The Evolving Theory of Evolutionary Radiations.
Trends in ecology & evolution, v. 31, p.27-34.
Simpson, G.G., 1955. Major features of evolution. Columbia University Press, 434 p.
Slater, G.J., 2013, Phylogenetic evidence for a shift in the mode of mammalian body size
evolution at the Cretaceous-Palaeogene boundary: Methods in Ecology and
Evolution, v. 4, p. 734‒744.
Slater, G.J., 2015, Not so early bursts and the dynamic nature of morphological
diversification: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 112, p.
3595-3596.
Slater, G.J., 2015, Iterative adaptive radiations of fossil canids show no evidence for
diversity-dependent trait evolution: Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, v. 112, p. 4897‒4902.
Slater, G.J., and Harmon, L.J., 2013, Unifying fossils and phylogenies for comparative
analyses of diversification and trait evolution: Methods in Ecology and Evolution,
v. 4, p. 699‒702.
Slater, G.J., Price, S.A., Santini, F. and Alfaro, M.E., 2010, Diversity versus disparity and
the radiation of modern cetaceans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, v. 277, p. 3097-3104.
266
Swofford, D., 2002, PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other
Methods): Version 4. Massachusetts, Sinauer Associates.
Vermeij, G.J., 1987, Evolution and escalation: an ecological history of life. Princeton
University Press.
Vrba, E.S., 1987, Ecology in relation to speciation rates: some case histories of Miocene-
Recent mammal clades. Evolutionary Ecology, v. 1, p.283-300.
Wagner, P.J., 1997, Patterns of morphologic diversification among the Rostroconchia:
Paleobiology, v. 23, p. 115-150.
Wagner, P.J., 2000, Exhaustion of morphologic character states among fossil taxa:
Evolution, v. 54, 365‒386.
Wagner, P.J., 2010. Paleontological perspectives on morphological evolution. in
Evolution since Darwin: the first, 150 years, pp.451-478.
Wagner, P. J., 2012, Modelling rate distributions using character compatibility:
implications for morphological evolution among fossil invertebrates: Biology Letters,
v. 8, p. 143—146.
Webster, G.D., 2013, Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, coronates, and
hemistreptocrinoids, 1758–2012: [http://crinoids.azurewebsites.net/]
Webster, G.D. and Maples, C.G., 2006, Cladid crinoid (Echinodermata) anal conditions:
a terminology problem and proposed solution: Palaeontology, v. 49, p. 187–212.
Wright, D.F., 2015, Fossils, homology, and “Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny”: a
reassessment of primary posterior plate homologies among fossil and living
267
crinoids with insight from developmental biology: Paleobiology, v. 41, p. 570–
591.
Wright, D.F., in press, Bayesian estimation of fossil phylogenies and the evolution of
early to middle Paleozoic crinoids (Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology.
Wright, D.F., Ausich, W.I., Cole, S.R., Rhenberg, E.C., and Peter, M.E., in press,
Phylogenetic taxonomy and classification of the Crinoidea (Echinodermata):
Journal of Paleontology.
Zhang, C., Stadler, T., Klopfstein, S., Heath, T.A. and Ronquist, F., 2016, Total-Evidence
Dating under the Fossilized Birth–Death Process: Systematic Biology, v. 65, p.,
228‒249.
268
Figure 5.1 Macroevolutionary models of trait evolution. Commonly used quantitative models of trait evolution among lineages are depicted as traitgrams. Models differ both conceptually and mathematically, especially how trait variation is expected to accumulate over time. Each represents adifferent ‘mode’ of evolution (Hunt and Carrano, 2010).
Comparative data can be fitted to alternative models using likelihood or Bayesian frameworks, and parameter estimates can be used to infer evolutionary tempo and mode
(but see Hunt, 2012). All models shown expect a degree of phylogenetic autocorrelation among species except “white noise”, which is equivalent to Brownian motion on a star phylogeny. Equations describing the models shown are described in Hansen (1997),
Butler and King (2004), Felsenstein (2004), Harmon et al. (2010), and Paradis (2012).
269
Fig. 5.1
270
Fig. 5.2 Rates of phenotypic evolution in eucladid crinoids during the Paleozoic. The upper figure is the Maximum Clade Credibility tree from the Bayesian phylogenetic analysis. Major clades are identified at nodes. Median rates of morphologic evolution are shown along branches. Red branches indicate elevated rates and black branches indicate lower rates. Node bars are 95% highest probability densities for divergences.The lower figure are results from the maximum-likelihood analysis over a random sample of 100 time-calibrated trees from the Bayesian posterior distribution.Colored circles are mean rates and open circles represent medians. Red circles indicate intervals with >55% of sampled phylogenies were characterized by statistically high rates, whereas blule circles represent intervals where >55% of sampled phylogenies had statistically low rates (See
Materials and Methods). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
271
Fig. 5.2
272
Figure 5.3 Disparity and diversity profiles for Paleozoic eucladid crinoids. (Upper)
Squares indicate the average pairwise distance among species placed in period-level bins.
Note the Ordovician point is offset because eucladids originated during the Late
Ordovician. Errors bars are 1 standard error based on bootstrap resampling. Although
based on different taxon sampling strategies, discrete characters, and homologies, the
major features and overall trajectory of this curve are strikingly similar to previous
disparity profiles generated for Paleozoic eucladids (Foote, 1995 [fig. 15], 1999 [fig.
39]). (Middle) Circles represent taxonomic diversity, calculated as the number of genera
per time bin using taxonomic first and last appearances recorded in Webster (2013).
Errors bars are 1 standard error based on 1,000 bootstrap replicates. (Lower) Median
diversity of taxa sampled for phylogenetic analysis calculated across 500 randomly
sampled time-calibrated trees from the posterior distribution. Uncertainty around the
median curve is indicated by the shaded region bounded by two-tailed 95% upper and lower quantiles.
273
Fig. 5.3 274
Figure 5.4 Time-varying diversification and sampling parameters estimated from
phylogenetic analysis and stratigraphic ranges of genera. Net diversification (A),
relative extinction (B), and sampling rates (C) from the Bayesian posterior distribution
obtained from phylogenetic analysis. Points indicate median values for all parameter
estimates in the posterior distribution. Error bars reflect 95% condifence intervals. The
circles (D) represent net taxonomic diversification calculated at the genus-level, whereas the X’s indicate per-interval rates of turnover among genera (see Materials and Methods).
275
Fig. 5.4
276
Figure 5.5 Rates of morphologic evolution among eucladid subclades. Rates of morphologic evolution among the cyathoform (left) and cladoform (right) subclades of eucladid crinoids. Rates were inferred using the maximum-likelihood method over a random sample of 100 time-calibrated trees from the posterior distribution. Colored circles are mean rates and open circles represent medians. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
277
Fig. 5.5
278
Figure 5.6 Identification of adaptive zones based on principal coordinate analysis of
the morphologic character matrix. Adaptive zones are identified based on the clustering of taxa in morphospace. Zones were identified by rank correlation of PCO axes and morphologic traits (see Materials and Methods) and correspond with previously identified grades of body plan organization in eucladids (Kammer and Ausich, 1992,
1993, 1996; Webster and Maples, 2006; Wright, 2015).
279
Fig. 5.6
280
Figure 5.7 Phylomorphospace and adaptive zone occupation throughout the history of Paleozoic radiation. Results of principal coordinate analysis conducted on the entire matrix with taxa joined according to phylogenetic relationships implied by the MCC tree.
The time-series shows morphologic disparity within eucladids through time and among clades. Taxa occurring within a timeslice are indicated by filled circles, whereas taxa not occurring within a timeslice are removed. Cyathoform taxa are distributed on the right hand side of PCO1, whereas taxa within cladoform subzones are in the center and left.
See Figure 5.6 and the Materials and Methods section for delimitation and interpretation of eucladid adaptive zones.
281
Fig. 5.7
282
Figure 5.8 The relationship between taxonomic and morphologic diversification in
Paleozoic eucladids. Evolutionary radiation in Paleozoic eucladid crinoids shown in a
diversity-disparity plot. Taxonomic data were transformed to a log scale, generating a
linear expectation in taxonomic diversification. Disparity and taxonomic diversity were
range standardized using [(xi – min[x] ) / (max[x] – min[x])]. If data fall above the red line, disparification is outpacing diversification. If data instead fall below the red line, diversification is outpacing the rate at which morphologic innovation is generated. Data falling on the red line imply concordance between diversity and disparity. See Jablonski
(in press) for additional information on types of evolutionary radiations in diversity- disparity space. Error bars are not shown (see Figure 5.9), but the Silurian and Devonian points are significantly above the 1:1 line and Pennsylvanian point falls significantly below it. Ord = Ordovician, Sil = Silurian, Dev = Devonian, Miss = Mississippian (early
Carboniferous), Penn = Pennsylvanian (late Carboniferous), and Perm = Permian.
283
Fig. 5.8
284
Figure 5.9 Additional plots depicting the radiation of eucladids in diversity-disparity space. These plots are included to show uncertainty in taxonomic diversity and morphologic disparity plotted in diversity-disparity space. Error bars are 1 standard error from 1,000 bootstrap replicates. Unlike Figure 5.9, data were not range standardized.
Note that taxonomic diversity is plotted on a log scale in the upper figure, but not in the lower figure.
285
Fig. 5.9
286
Figure 5.10 Maximum Clade Credibility tree from Bayesian analysis of 81 Paleozoic
eucladid crinoid species. Node support is indicated by posterior probabilities. Basal
nodes are well supported, but many more nested nodes are not. However, cyathoform and cladoform clades (see main text and Figure 5.3) are supported with PP = 1.
287
Fig. 5.10
288
Chapter 6: Crinoids from the Bobcaygeon and Verulam Formations (Upper Ordovician)
near Brechin, Ontario: new taxa and emended descriptions
Abstract.— A survey of newly collected material from the Bobcaygeon and Verulam
Formations reveals a large number of exceptionally preserved crinoid specimens.
Focusing on taxa placed within the Cladida, this chapter contains taxonomic descriptions for eight species across five genera. The genus Konieckicrinus n. gen. n. sp. is proposed, comprised of two previously unknown species. In addition, descriptions for other species within the Brechin fauna are included, with comments on their taxonomic membership and recent changes in crinoid classification.
Introduction
The Ordovician is a key interval for understanding the evolutionary history and diversification of crinoids (Echinodermata, Crinoidea) because nearly all major clades first appear in Ordovician strata. After their initial diversification during the Early
Ordovician, crinoids subsequently underwent a taxonomic and morphologic radiation coincident with the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (GOBE) and reached peak
Ordovician diversity during the Sandbian. Following the GOBE, crinoid taxonomic
289 diversity dramatically declined and was decimated by the end-Ordovician mass extinction
(Peters and Ausich, 2008).
The Upper Ordovician (lower Katian) Bobcaygeon and Verulam Formations near
Brechin, Ontario are comprised of a highly diverse, well-preserved crinoid fauna. These
“Brechin Fauna” crinoids are preserved alongside a rich Late Ordovician echinoderm community including representative ophiuroids, paracrinoids, cystoids, edrioasteroids, edrioblastoids, cyclocystoids, and homalozoans. This fauna provides an exceptional window into a taxonomically diverse Late Ordovician crinoid community from the interval between the Sandbian diversity peak and the end-Ordovician extinction.
Although the sedimentology, stratigraphy and paleoecology of these Upper Ordovician strata have been studied in detail, the Brechin Fauna crinoids have not had a comprehensive taxonomic evaluation since Frank Springer’s (1911) classic monograph.
A survey of newly collected material from the Bobcaygeon and Verulam
Formations reveals a large number of exceptionally preserved crinoid specimens with arms, stems, and attachment structures intact. Most importantly, this chapter describes two new, previously undescribed species and places them in a new genus. Many previously described species from this locality were based on incomplete material; thus, this new collection provides an opportunity to more fully describe morphologic details of known Ordovician crinoid taxa and to conduct a taxonomic re-evaluation.
290
Geographic and stratigraphic occurrences and geologic setting
Fossil material was collected from the Bobcaygeon and Verulam Formations (Upper
Ordovician) exposed in the Lake Simcoe region near Brechin, Ontario (Fig. 6.1).
Laurentia was located ~20o south of the equator during the Late Ordovician (Scotese and
McKerrow, 1991) and sediments comprising both formations were deposited in warm water subtropical environments (Brett and Taylor, 1999, but see Brookfield, 1988 for an alternative interpretation). The Bobcaygeon Formation ranges in age from the Sandbian to Katian, whereas the Verulam is early Katian (Fig. 6.2). These strata consist of bioclastic wackestones, grainstones, and packstones interbedded with calcareous shales.
The lithology of the Bobcaygeon Formation ranges from lime mudstone to grainstone dominant lithologies and are frequently interbedded with shale, suggesting deposition in lagoonal and shoaling settings to shallow shelf environments (Brookfield and Brett, 1988;
Brett and Taylor, 1999). In contrast, limestones in the Verulam are somewhat thinner bedded and have greater proportion of interbedded shale, indicated deposition in a distal- shelf environment (Brett and Taylor, 1999). Both formations contain exceptionally preserved echinoderm faunas, including a diverse assemblage of crinoids. Although all major clades of Ordovician crinoids are represented in the Brechin fauna, cladids are the most abundant in the collections, especially cladids belonging to the Eucladida (Wright, in press) (Fig. 6.3).
291
Systematic paleontology
The classification system used here is from Wright et al. (in press). Morphologic terms follow Ubaghs (1978), Webster and Maples (2008), and Wright (2015). All measurements are in mm. References listed in the synonomies below can be found in
Webster (2013). Specimen numbers refer to the reference numbers given by Joe Koniecki during collection and curation. Following publication of in prep manuscripts describing
Brechin crinoids (Wright, in prep, Cole, in prep, Ausich et al., in prep), all fossils will be donated to the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology and will be given museum new numbers when reposited. Although new species and genera are provided with taxonomic names, this dissertation chapter represents a nascent version of research currently in preparation for publication. All names, diagnoses, descriptions, and identifications are preliminary and should not be cited or used formally until results are published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Class Crinoidea Miller, 1821
Subclass Pentacrinoidea Jaekel, 1918
Infraclass Inadunata Wachsmuth and Springer, 1885
Inadunata incertae sedis: Family Metabolocrindae Jaekel, 1902
Remarks.—The Metabolocrindae are traditionally placed within the Cladida as defined by
Moore and Laudon (1943). However, the phylogenetic position of the Metabolocrinidae
292 within the broader Pentacrinoidea clade is currently in question. Phylogenetic analysis of early to middle Paleozoic non-camerate taxa by Wright (in press) recovered
Metabolocrinus as more closely related to the disparid clade than cladids, suggesting the metabolocrinids are in need of taxonomic revision. The Metabolocrindae is therefore considered herein as Inadunata incertae sedis.
Genus Konieckicrinus new genus
Type species.— Konieckicrinus brechinensis new species.
Diagnosis.—Low bowl-shaped calyx, dicyclic, stellate plate sculpturing, second primibrachial axillary, pinnulate, arms branch isotomously on the second primibrachial, asymmetric endotomous to distal isotomous branching, brachials moderately cuneate, radianial in cup, located below and to the left of the C-ray radial, anal X above radianal, in contact the C-ray radial and supporting a median anal sac comprised of numerous tiny plates, column round, lumen round.
Etymology.—Konieckicrinus is named after Joseph Koniecki, who collected specimens of
Konieckicrinus from quarries near Brechin.
Remarks.— Konieckicrinus is assigned to the Metabolocrinidae based on the presence of pinnules arms with endotomous branching. The presence of cuneate arms is
293
Konieckicrinus is most similar to the Ordovician genus Eopinnacrinus Brower and
Veinus, 1982 which was placed in the Metabolocrinidae by Ausich (1998).
Konieckicrinus differs from Eopinnacrinus in having aymmetric endotomous to isotomous branching above secundibrachials, stellate plate ornamentation, and an axillary on the second primibrachial.
Konieckicrinus brechinensis n. gen n. sp.
Figures 6.4-6.5
Holotype.—5097.2JK, paratype 5097.3JK.
Diagnosis.—Species of Konieckicrinus with asymmetric endotomous branching above secundibrachials.
Occurrence.—Bobcaygeon Formation, (Sandbian-Katian, Upper Ordovician), Ontario,
Canada.
Description.—Calyx medium size, low bowl shape, base convex, stellate ornamentation on plates; infrabasals 5, visible from the side, basals 5, higher than wide, radials 5, plates larger than other calyx plates, subequal to slightly wider than high.
Brachials moderately cuneate; pinnulate arms; first primibrachial wider than higher, axillary on the second primibrachial, triangular, branching with asymmetric
294
endotomy on secundibrachial 4-8, distal branches endotomous, with subequal rami
arising from each axillary, three to six distal arms in each ray.
Radianal beneath and to the left of the C ray radial plate, approximate size of basals; anal X above radianal, in contact with C ray radial, supporting a median column of anal sac plates.
Column circular, lumen round.
Etymology.— Named for the town of Brechin, Ontario, which is located near where the specimens were collected.
Konieckicrinus josephi n. gen n. sp.
Figures 6.6-6.8
Holotype.—5097.7JK, paratypes 5097.1JK, 5097.6JK.
Diagnosis.—Species of Konieckicrinus with distal isotomous branching above
secundibrachials.
Occurrence.—Bobcaygeon Formation, (Sandbian-Katian, Upper Ordovician), Ontario,
Canada.
295
Description.—Calyx small to medium size, low to moderate bowl shape, base convex, stellate ornamentation on plates; infrabasals 5, visible from the side, wider than high; basals 5, higher than wide, radials 5, larger than other calyx plates, wider than high.
Brachials moderately cuneate; pinnulate arms; first branching on the second
primibrachial, branching isotomously above secundibrachials, typically at or above
secundibrachial 8, distal branches endotomous to isotomous, with subequal rami arising
from each axillary, three to six distal arms in each ray.
Radianal beneath and to the left of the C ray radial plate, approximate size of
basals, anal X above radianal, in contact with C ray radial and CD basal, supporting a
median column of anal sac plates, anal sac plates with stellate ornamentation.
Column circular, lumen round, attachment structure unknown, stem length is at
least more twice that of crown.
Etymology.— Named for the town of Brechin, Ontario, which is located near where the specimens were collected.
.
Parvclass Cladida Moore and Laudon, 1943
Superorder Porocrinoidea, Wright, in press
Order Porocrinida Miller and Gurley, 1894
Genus Illemocrinus Eckert, 1987
Type species.—Illemocrinus amphiatus Eckert, 1987; by monotypy.
296
Other species.—Monospecific.
Illemocrinus amphiatus Eckert, 1987
Fig. 6.12
1987 Illemocrinus amphiatus Eckert, 1987, p. 862.
1993 Illemocrinus amphiatus; Webster, p. 72.
1988 Illemocrinus amphiatus; Ausich, p. 34.
Ocurrence.—Late Ordovician (Katian), Bobcaygeon Formation; Ontario, Canada.
Description.—Calyx small, medium bowl to globe shape; slightly higher than wide, infrabasals small, pentagonal; basal large, much higher than wide, with 5 to 6 ridges radiating from the center; radials 5, curved inward, slightly wider than high.
Radianal positioned below and to the left of the C ray radial, quadrangular; anal X above and to the right of the radianal, positioned in between the C and D ray radials, slightly larger than the radianal, supporting three additional anal plates above; anal sac massive, high, approximately twice the length of the calyx, comprised of stacked plates, becoming more irregular near the summit; anal sac plates with stellate ornamentation.
297
Brachials uniserial, wider than high; radial facets angustary, sloping down and inward; arms branch isotomously on the second primibrachial, higher branching isotomous up to at least four bifurcations.
Column pentagonal.
Materials.—5140.1JK.
Family Porocrinidae Miller and Gurley, 1894
Genus Carabocrinus
Type species.—Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857.
Other species.—Carabocrinus boltoni Ausich and Copper, 2010; C. crateriformis (Hall,
1866); C. conoideus Sardeson, 1925; C. dicyclicus (Sardeson, 1899); C. esthonus Jaekel,
1918; C. geometricus Hudson, 1905; C. granulosus Evans, 1926; C. huronensis Foerste,
1924; C. magnificus Sardeson, 1939; C. micropunctatus Brower and Veinus, 1974; C. oogyi Kolata, 1975; C. ovalis Miller and Gurley, 1894; C. stellifer Brower and Veinus,
1974; C. treadwelli Sinclair, 1945; C. vancortlandti.
Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857
Fig. 6.9
298
1857 Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857, p. 276.
1859 Carabocrinus radiatus; Billings p. 31, pl. 2, figs. 3a-3e.
1868 Carabocrinus radiatus; Shumard, p. 357.
1868 Carabocrinus radiatus; Bigsby, p. 18.
1889 Carabocrinus radiatus S.A. Miller, p. 182.
1910 Carabocrinus radiatus; Grabau and Shimer, p. 504, fig. 1817.
1912 Carabocrinus cf. radiatus; Ruedemann, p. 86, pl., 3, fig. 6.
1915 Carabocrinus radiatus; Basser, p. 183.
1915 Carabocrinus cf. radiatus; Basser, p. 183.
1938 Carabocrinus radiatus; Bassler, p. 60.
1943 Carabocrinus radiatus; Bassler and Moodey, p. 356.
1943 Carabocrinus radiatus; Moore and Laudon, p. 153, pl., 53, fig. 5.
1946, Carabocrinus radiatus; Wilson, p. 38, pl., 5, fig. 5.
1973 Carabocrinus radiatus; Webster, p. 78.
1996 Carabocrinus radiatus; Brower, 1996, p. 615, figs. 1-2.
Ocurrence.—Late Ordovician (Katian), New York, Iowa; Bobcaygeon Formation;
Ontario, Canada.
Description.—Calyx low, rounded base; relatively wide; bearing multiple stellate ridges;
exothecal respiratory canals; infrabasals 5, visible in side view, slightly wider than high,
299
pentagonal; basals large, hexagonal to septagonal, slightly higher than wide; radials 5,
wider than high.
Radianal split into infer- and superradianals, between CD and BC interray basals, higher than wide; anal X located above and to the left of the superradianal.
Uniserial brachials; narrow, angustary radial facets; isotomous branching on the second primibrachial; higher branching isotomous to somewhat heterotomous.
Proximal column circular.
Materials.—5080.2bJK and 5080.2cJK.
Carabocrinus vancortlandti Billings, 1859
Figs. 6.10
1859 Carabocrinus vancortlandti Billings, p. 52, pl, 2, fig. 4.
1868 Carabocrinus vancortlandti; Shumard, p. 357.
1868 Carabocrinus vancortlandti; Bigsby, p. 18.
1889 Carabocrinus vancortlandti; Miller, S.A. p. 231.
1900 Carabocrinus vancortlandti; Weller, p. 28, fig. 9.
1915, Carabocrinus vancortlandti; Bassler, p. 183.
1943 Carabocrinus vancortlandti; Bassler and Moodey, p. 356.
1943 Carabocrinus vancortlandti; Moore and Laudon, p. 153, pl., 53, fig. 6.
1973 Carabocrinus vancortlandti Webster, p. 78.
300
1996 Carabocrinus vancortlandti Brower, p. 617, figs. 4-5.
Ocurrence.—Middle to Late Ordovician (Darriwilian-Katian), Iowa, Kentucky, United
States; Ontario, Canada.
Description.— Calyx high, rounded base and side; oval to egg shaped; bearing multiple,
well-defined stellate riches; exothecal respiratory canals; infrabasals 5, visible in side view, slightly wider than high, pentagonal; basals large, hexagonal to septagonal, slightly higher than wide; radials 5, wider than high.
Radianal split into infer- and superradianals, between CD and BC interray basals, both plates higher than wide; anal X located above and to the left of the superradianal.
Uniserial brachials; narrow facets, angustary; isotomous branching on the second primibrachial; higher branching isotomous, higher axillaries on different secundibrachials within each ray.
Proximal column circular, at least three time the length of the crown.
Materials.—5143JK.
Magnorder Eucladida Wright, in press
Superorder Cyathoformes Wright et al., in press
Cyathoformes incertae sedis: “Dendrocrinida” Bather, 1899
Family Dendrocrinidae Wachsmuth and Springer, 1886
301
Genus Grenprisia Moore, 1962
Type species.—Grenprisia billingsi Moore, 1962.
Other species.—G. springeri Moore, 1962.
Grenprisia billingsi (Springer, 1911)
1911 Ottawacrinus billingsi Springer; p. 40, pl. 4, figs. 1-4.
1915 Ottawacrinus billingsi; Bassler, p. 926.
1943 Ottawacrinus billingsi; Bassler and Moodey, p. 577.
1944 Ottawacrinus billingsi; Moore and Laudon, p. 158, pl. 53, fig. 23.
1962 Grenprisia billingsi; Moore, p. 38.
1973 Grenprisia billingsi; Webster, p. 143.
1978 Grenprisia billingsi; Brower and Veinus, p. 443, pl, 13, figs. 1-4.
1978 Grenprisia billingsi; More and Lane, p. T612, figs. 397, nos. 2a-2g.
1986,Grenprisia billingsi; Webster, p. 162.
Ocurrence.—Late Ordovician (Katian), Hull Limestone, Bobcaygeon Formation;
Ontario, Canada.
Materials.—5110.2JK.
302
Grenprisia springeri (Springer, 1911)
Fig. 6.11
1911 Ottawacrinus typus Springer 1911 (non Billings, 1887), p. 37, pl. 4, figs. 5-7.
1962 Grenprisia springeri; Moore, p. 38.
1973 Grenprisia springeri; Webster, p. 143.
1978 Grenprisia springeri; Moore and Lane, p. T612, fig. 397, no. 2h.
1986 Grenprisia springeri; Webster, p. 162.
Ocurrence.— Late Ordovician (Katian), Hull Limestone, Bobcaygeon Formation;
Ontario, Canada.
Description.—Calyx medium to small in size, high bowl shape, flat base; infrabasals large, visible from the side, subequal; basals large, equal in size or larger than radials; radial plates wider than high.
Radianal large, directly above posterior basal plate, supporting an anal X and right tube plate above leading to an anal sac; cylindrical, large anal sac, comprised of small plates with stellate ornamentation.
Arms uniserial; heterotomous, branching isotomously on primibrachial 3, multiple bifurcations above secundibrachials.
Pentemeric stem, transversely pentagonal.
303
Materials.—5110.11JK.
Remarks.—Grenprisia billingsi is distinguished from G. springeri by its much larger size
and heterotomous arms with secondary ramules that only branch on one side, whereas G.
springeri is much smaller and typically has isotomous branching arms with one or two
bifurcations (Springer, 1911).
Superorder Flexibilia Zittel, 1895
Remarks.—The Flexibilia have traditionally been considered a subclass of crinoids (e.g.,
Moore and Teichert, 1978). However, it has been hypothesized since Springer (1911,
1920) that flexible crinoids descended from ancestors that were placed within the
Cladida, rendering the cladids paraphyletic. Simms and Sevastopulo (1993) recommended the Flexibilia be placed within the Cladida to eschew paraphyly in the
classification of crinoid higher taa. Wright et al.’s (in press) revised classification of the
Crinoidea follows Simms and Sevastopulo (1993) and placed the Flexibilia as a
superorder within the Cladida.
304
Family Cupulocrinidae Moore and Laudon, 1943
Remarks.—The Cupulocrinidae was originally erected by Moore and Laudon (1943) as a monogeneric family of Ordovician crinoids from North America. However,
Morenacrinus Ausich, Gil Cid, and Alonso, 2002 from the Darriwilian of Spain and
Stewbrecrinus Jell, 1999 from the Devonian of Australia have since been placed within the family. Building on the work of Springer, 1920, a recent phylogenetic analysis of
Wright (in press) found evidence to support Cupulocrinus heterocostalis as potentially ancestral to flexible crinoids. Wright et al. (in press) presented a phylogeny-based revision to crinoid classification and suggested Cupulocrinus be included within the definition of the flexible clade. Thus, the monophyly of the family is in question.
However, a comprehensive revision is beyond the scope of this chapter.
Genus Cupulocrinus d’Orbigny, 1849
Type species.—Cupulocrinus heterocostalis (Hall, 1847).
Other species.—Cupulocrinus angustatus (Meek and Worthen, 1870); C. austrogracilis
Jell, 1999; C. canaliculatus Brower and Veinus, 1978; C. crossmani Brower, 1992; C. heterobrachialis Rambsbottom, 1961; C. humilis (Billings, 1857); C. jewetti (Billings,
1859); C. kentuckiensis Springer, 1911; C. latibrachiatus (Billings, 1857); C. leversoni
Kolata, 1986; C. minimus Springer, 1911; C. minimus Springer 1911; C. molanderi
305
Kolata, 1975; C. plattesvillensis Kolata, 1975; C. sepulchrum Ramsbottom, 1961; C. tuberculatus d’Orbigny, 1847.
Cupulocrinus humilis (Billings, 1857)
Fig. 6.13
1857 Dendrocrinus humilis Billings, 1857, p. 270.
1859 Dendrocrinus humilis; Billings, p. 39.pl. 3, fig. 4.
1868 Dendrocrinus humilis; Shumard, p. 365.
1868 Dendrocrinus humilis Bigsby, p. 19.
1889 Dendrocrinus humilis Miller, 1889, p. 238.
1911 Cupulocrinus humilis; Springer, 1911, p. 28, pl. 1, figs. 8-9.
1915 Cupulocrinus humilis; Bassler, p. 315.
1943 Cupulocrinus humilis; Bassler and Moodey, p. 387.
1943 Cupulocrinus humilis; Moore and Laudon, p. 155, pl., 53, figs. 7, 25.
1953 Cupulocrinus humilis; Ubaghs, p. 751, figs. 14, no. b.
1973 Cupulocrinus humilis; Webster, p. 92.
1975 Cupulocrinus humilis; Kolata, p. 38, pl. 6, fig. 7.
1978 Cupulocrinus humilis; Ubaghs, p. T125, fig. 94, no. 2.
1981 Cupulocrinus humilis; Lewis, p. 227.
1986 Cupulocrinus humilis; Webster, p. 111.
1988 Cupulocrinus humilis; Webster, p. 63.
2005 Cupulocrinus humilis Sloan, p. 153, fig. 4, no. 6.
306
Ocurrence.—Late Ordovician (Katian), Kentucky, New York, Minnesota, United Staes;
Ontario, Canada.
Description.—Calyx conical, flat based, much higher than wide, smooth; infrabasals 5, pentagonal, higher than wide; basals large, hexagonal, comprising >50% of calyx height, radials subequal in height:width, closely spaced, abutting one another.
Radianal large, approximate in size to radials, hexagonal, located directly beneath the C-ray radial plate, in contact with CD and BC basal plates; anal X similar in size to
other calyx plates, higher than wide, above and to the left of radianal, situated between
the C and D radials, supporting sac plates above; anal sac tube-like, erect, consisting of stacked, rounded plates, distally tapering.
Brachials uniseral, much wider than high, narrowing distally; radial facets wide, extending across the full width of the radial facets; weakly developed “petelloid” process, number of primibrachials variable, branching isotomously on primibrachials 4-12; higher bifurcations isotomous to heterotomous;
Column circular; proximal portion wider than the rest of the stem; large nudinodals, regularly spaced.
Materials.—5115JK and 5123.2JK.
307
Cupulocrinus jewetti (Billings, 1859)
Fig. 6.14
1859 Dendrocrinus jewetti Billings, E., p. 43, fig. 13.
1868 Dendrocrinus jewetti; Shumard, p. 356.
1868 Dendrocrinus jewetti; Bigsby, p. 19.
1883 Dendrocrinus jewetti; Billings W.R., p. 51.
1889 Dendrocrinus jewetti; Miller, p. 238, fig. 283.
1911Cupulocrinus jewetti; Springer, p. 28, pl. 1, figs. 10-12, pl. 3, figs. 5-7c.
1915 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Bassler, p. 315.
1915 Dendrocrinus jewetti, Bassler, p. 315.
1920 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Springer, p. 88, pl. 75, figs. 2-4.
1943 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Bassler and Moodey, p. 387.
1943 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Moore and Laudon, p. 155, pl 53, fig. 12.
1970 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Norford et al., p. 606, pl 4, fig. 12.
1970 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Bolton, p. 63, pl. 13, fig. 12.
1972 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Bolton and Copeland, p. 54, pl. A, fig. 22.
1977 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Webster, p. 62.
1978 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Frest and Strimple, p. 688, fig. 7, no. A.
1978 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Brower and Veinus, p. 430, pl. 14, figs. 1-4, pl. 15, figs. 4, 7.
1978 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Ubaghs, p. T189, fig. 160, no. 8.
1978 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Moore, p. T627, fig. 409, no. 2a-2b.
308
1981 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Lewis, p. 227.
1986 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Kolata, p. 714, fig. 2, no. 1.
1986 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Webster, p. 111.
1988 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Webster, p. 63.
1993 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Webster, p. 45.
1999 Cupulocrinus jewetti; Brett and Taylor, p. 69, fig. 80, no. e, Fig. 83.
Ocurrence.—Late Ordovician (Katian), Kentucky, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, United
States; Ontario, Canada.
Description.— Calyx conical to medium bowl shape, flat based, widest at the summit, smooth; infrabasals 5, pentagonal, higher than wide; basals large, hexagonal, comprising
>50% of calyx height, radials subequal in height:width, closely spaced, abutting one
another.
Radianal large, approximate in size to radials, hexagonal, located directly beneath
the C-ray radial plate, in contact with CD and BC basal plates; Anal X similar
approximate size of radials, subequal, above and to the left of radianal, situated between
the C and D radials, supporting sac plates above; anal sac tube-like, erect, consisting of
stacked, rounded plates, distally tapering, with a median keel.
Brachials uniseral, much wider than high, narrowing distally; radial facets wide, extending across the full width of the radial facets; “petelloid” process, number of
309 primibrachials roughly constant, three in posterior rays, branching isotomously on primibrachials 4-12; higher bifurcations isotomous to heterotomous.
Column circular; proximal portion does not widen near calyx.
Materials.—5028.1.
310
References
Ausich, W.I., 1998, Phylogeny of Arenig to Caradoc Crinoids (Phylum Echinodermata)
and suprageneric classification of the Crinoidea: The University of Kansas
Paleontological Contributions Papers, New Series, no. 9, 36 p.
Bather, F.A., 1899, A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa: British Association
for the Advancement of Science (1898), p. 916–923.
Billings, E., 1857, New species of fossils from Silurian rocks of Canada: Canada Geological
Survey, Report of Progress 1853-1856, Report for the year 1856, p. 247–345.
Brett, C.E., and Taylor, W.L., 1999, Middle Ordovician of the Lake Simcoe area of
Ontario, Canada, in Hess, H., Ausich, W.I., Brett, C.E., and Simms, M.H., Fossil
Crinoids. Cambridge University Press, p. 63-74.
Brookfield, M. E. 1988, A mid-Ordovician temperate carbonate shelf—the Black River
and Trenton Limestone Groups of southern Ontario, Canada. Sedimentary
Geology, v., 60, p. 137-153.
Brookfield, M. E. and C. E. Brett. 1988, Paleoenvironments of the mid-Ordovician
(Upper Caradocian) Trenton Limestones of southern Ontario, Canada: storm
sedimentation on a shoal-basin shelf model. Sedimentary Geology, v. 57, p. 75-
105.
Eckert, J.D., 1987, Illemocrinus amphiatus, a new cladid inadunate crinoid from the
Middle Ordovician of Ontario: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 24, p. 860-
865. 311
Jaekel, O., 1918, Phylogenie und System der Pelmatozoen: Paläeontologische Zeitschrift,
v. 3, p. 1–128.
Orbigny, A.D. d', 1849, Cours élémentaire de paléontologie et géologie Stratigraphiques:
v. 1, 299 p. Paris, Victor Masson.
McKerrow, W.S., Dewey, J.F. and Scotese, C.R., 1991, The Ordovician and Silurian
development of the Iapetus ocea: Special Papers in Palaeontology, v. 44, p.165-
178.
Miller, J.S., 1821, A Natural History of the Crinoidea, or Lily-Shaped Animals; with
Observations on the Genera, Asteria, Euryale, Comatula and Marsupites: Bristol,
C. Frost, 150 p.
Miller, S.A. and Gurley, W.F.E., 1894, New genera and species of Echinodermata:
Illinois State Museum of Natural History, v. 5, 53 p.
Moore, R.C., 1962, Ray structures of some inadunate crinoids. University of Kansas
Paleontological Contributions, v. 5, 1–47.
Moore, R.C., and Laudon, L.R., 1943, Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids:
Geological Society of America Special Paper, no. 46, 151 p.
Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds., 1978, Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T,
Echinodermata 2: Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press,
Lawrence, Kansas, 1027 p.
Peters, S.E., and Ausich, W.I., 2008, A sampling-adjusted macroevolutionary history for
Ordovician-Early Silurian crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 34, p. 104‒116.
312
Springer, F., 1911, On a Trenton echinoderm fauna: Canada Department Mines Memoir
no. 15-P, 70 p.
Springer, F., 1920, The Crinoidea Flexibilia: Smithsonian Institution Publication no.
2501, 486 p.
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F., 1880–1886, Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Pt. I. The
families Ichthyocrinidae and Cyathocrinidae (1880), p. 226‒378 (separate repaged
p. 1–153). Pt. II. Family Sphaeroidocrinidae, with the sub-families Platycrinidae,
Rhodocrinidae, and Actinocrinidae (1881), p. 177‒411 (separate repaged, p. 1‒
237). Pt. III, Sec. 1. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate
crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions (1885), p. 225‒364 (separate
repaged, 1‒138). Pt. III, Sec. 2. Discussion of the classification and relations of
the brachiate crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions (1886), p. 64‒
226 (separate repaged to continue with section 1, 139‒302).
Wright, D.F., 2015a, Fossils, homology, and “Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny”: a
reassessment of primary posterior plate homologies among fossil and living
crinoids with insight from developmental biology: Paleobiology, v. 41, p. 570–
591.
Wright, D.F., this issue, Bayesian estimation of fossil phylogenies and the evolution of
early to middle Paleozoic crinoids (Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology.
313
Wright, D.F., Ausich, W.I., Cole, S.R., Peter, M.E., Rhenburg, E.C., in press,
Phylogenetic taxonomy and classification of the Crinoidea: Journal of
Paleontology.
314
Figure 6.1 Locality map of the Lake Simcoe region in Ontario.
315
Fig. 6.1
316
Figure 6.2 Stratigraphy of the Simcoe Group highlighting the position of the
Bobcaygeon and Verulam Formations. (Modified from Sproat et al., 2015).
317
Fig. 6.2
318
Figure 6.3 Abundance distribution of specimens represented in the Brechin collections. Number of specimens for in the collections for higher taxa. Note that cladids are far more abundant than camerates or disparids and most cladids belong to the
Eucladida rather than the Flexibilia or Hybocrinida (see Wright, in press).
319
Fig. 6.3
320
Figure 6.4 Konieckicrinus brechinensis n. gen. n. sp., specimen 5097.2. Bobcaygeon
Fm., Carden Quarry.
321
Fig. 6.4
322
Figure 6.5 Konieckicrinus brechinensis n. gen. n. sp., specimen 5097.3. Bobcaygeon
Fm., LaFarge Quarry.
323
Fig. 6.5
324
Figure 6.6 Konieckicrinus josephi n. gen. n. sp., specimen 5097.7JK. Bobcaygeon
Fm., Carden Quarry.
325
Fig. 6.6
326
Figure 6.7 Konieckicrinus josephi n. gen. n. sp., specimen 5097.1JK. Bobcageon Fm.,
LaFarge Quarry.
327
Fig. 6.7
328
Figure 6.8 Konieckicrinus josephi n. gen. n. sp., specimen 5097.6. Bobcaygeon Fm.,
Carden Quarry.
329
Fig. 6.8
330
Figure 6.9 Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857. Specimens 5080.2b (left) and 5080.2c
(right), Bobcaygeon Fm., Carden Quarry.
331
Fig. 6.9
332
Figure 6.10 Carabocrinus vancortlandti Billings, 1859. Specimen 5413JK, preserved on a slab with the camerates Cleiocrinus and Periglyptocrinus; Bobcaygeon Fm., LaFarge
Quarry.
333
Fig. 6.10
334
Figure 6.11 Grenprisia springeri Moore 1962. Specimen 5110.11JK, Bobcaygeon Fm.
335
Fig. 6.11
336
Figure 6.12 Illemocrinus amphiatus Eckert, 1987. Specimens 5140.1JK (left) and
5140JK (right), Bobcaygeon Fm.
337
Fig. 6.12
338
Figure 6.13 Cupulocrinus humilis (Billings, 1857). Specimen 5115 (left), Bobcaygeon
Fm.; 5123.2 (right), Verulam Fm.
339
Fig. 6.13
340
Figure 6.14 Cupulocrinus jewetti (Billings, 1859). Specimen 5028.1, Bobcaygeon Fm.,
Carden Quarry. Note regenerating arms.
341
Fig. 6.14
342
References
Abzhanov, A. 2013, von Baer’s law for the ages: lost and found principles of
developmental evolution: Trends in Genetics, v. 29, p. 712-722.
Alaniz, R.J., 2014, Dredging evolutionary theory: the emergence of the deep sea as a
transatlantic site for evolution 1853–1876 [Ph.D. dissertation]: University of
California, San Diego, 360 p.
Alroy, J., 2010, Geographical, environmental and intrinsic biotic controls on Phanerozoic
marine diversification. Palaeontology, v. 53, p. 1211-1235.
Alroy, J., 2016, On a conservative Bayesian method of inferring extinction: Paleobiology,
v. 42, p. 670-679.
Amemiya, S. A. Omori, T. Tsurugaya, T. Hibino, M. Yamaguchi, R. Kuraishi, M.
Kiyomoto, and T. Minokawa. 2014, Early stalked stages in ontogeny of the living
isocrinid sea lily Metacrinus rotundus: Acta Zoologica doi: 10.1111/azo.12109.
Angelin, N. P., 1878, Iconographia Crinoideorum. in stratis Sueciae Siluricis fossilium:
Samson and Wallin, Holmiae, 62 p.
Arnone, M. I. and D. H. Davidson. 1997, The hardwiring of development: organization
and function of genomic regulatory systems: Development, v. 124, p. 1851-1864.
Ausich, W.I., 1980, A model for niche differentiation in Lower Mississippian crinoid
communities: Journal of Paleontology, v. 54, p. 273-288.
343
Ausich, W.I., 1986, Early Silurian rhodocrinitacean crinoids (Brassfield Formation,
Ohio): Journal of Paleontology, v. 60, p. 84–106.
Ausich, W.I., 1996, Crinoid plate circlet homologies: Journal of Paleontology, v. 70, p.
955–964.
Ausich, W.I., 1998, Early phylogeny and subclass division of the Crinoidea (phylum
Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology, v. 72, p. 499–510.
Ausich, W.I., 1998, Phylogeny of Arenig to Caradoc Crinoids (Phylum Echinodermata)
and suprageneric classification of the Crinoidea: The University of Kansas
Paleontological Contributions Papers, New Series, no. 9, 36 p.
Ausich, W.I., and Babcock, L.E., 1998, The phylogenetic position of Echmatocrinus
brachiatus, a probable octocoral from the Burgess Shale: Palaeontology, v. 41, p.
193–202.
Ausich, W.I., and Bottjer, D.J., 1982, Tiering in suspension-feeding communities on soft
substrata throughout the Phanerozoic: Science, v. 216, p. 173–174.
Ausich, W.I., and Copper, P., 2010, The Crinoidea of Anticosti Island, Québec: (Late
Ordovician to Early Silurian): Palaeontographica Canadiana, vol. 29, 157 p.
Ausich, W.I., and Donovan, S.K., 2015, Phylogeny of disparid crinoids: Geological
Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 47, p. 855.
Ausich, W.I., Kammer, T.W., and Baumiller, T.K., 1994, Demise of the Middle
Paleozoic crinoid fauna: A single extinction event or rapid faunal turnover?:
Paleobiology, v. 20, p. 345‒361.
344
Ausich, W.I., and Kammer, T.W., 2001, The study of crinoids during the 20th century
and the challenges of the 21st century: Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 1161–
1173.
Ausich, W.I., and Kammer, T.W., 2008, Generic concepts in the Amphoracrinidae
Bather, 1899 (Class Crinoidea) and evaluation of generic assignments of North
American species: Journal of Paleontology, v. 82, p. 1139–1149.
Ausich, W.I., and Kammer, T.W., 2016, Exaptation of pelmatozoan oral surfaces:
constructional pathways in tegmen evolution: Journal of Paleontology,
doi:10.1017/jpa.2016.73.
Ausich, W.I., Kammer, T.W., and Baumiller, T.K., 1994, Demise of the Middle
Paleozoic crinoid fauna: a single extinction event or rapid faunal turnover?:
Paleobiology, v. 20, p. 345–361.
Ausich, W.I., Kammer, T.W., Rhenberg, E.C., and Wright, D.F., 2015, Early phylogeny
of crinoids within the pelmatozoan clade: Palaeontology, v. 58, p. 937–952.
Baldwin, B.G., and Sanderson, M.J., 1998, Age and rate of diversification of the
Hawaiian silversword alliance (Compostiae): Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, v. 95, p. 9402-9406.
Bapst, D.W., 2012, paleotree: an R package for paleontological and phylogenetic
analyses of evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution: v. 3, p. 803-807.
Bapst, D.W. 2012, When can clades be potentially resolved with morphology?: PLoS
One e62312. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062312
345
Bapst, D.W., 2013, A stochastic rate‐calibrated method for time‐scaling phylogenies of
fossil taxa: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 4, p.724–733.
Bapst, D.W., 2014, Assessing the effect of time-scaling on phylogeny-based analyses in
the fossil record: Paleobiology, v. 40, p. 331-351.
Bapst, D.W., and Hopkins, M.J., in press, Comparing cal3 and other a posteriori time-
scaling approaches in a case study with the Pterocephaliid trilobites:
Paleobiology.
Bapst, D.W., Wright, A.M., Matzke, N.J., and Lloyd, G.T., 2016, Topology, divergence
dates, and macroevolutionary inferences vary between different tip-dating
approaches applied to fossil theropods (Dinosauria): Biology Letters, 12,
20160237, doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0237.
Bassler, R. S., 1943, New Ordovician cystidean echinoderm from Oklahoma: American
Journal of Science, v. 241, p. 694–703.
Bassler, R. S., 1943, New Ordovician cystidean echinoderm from Oklahoma: American
Journal of Science, v. 241, p. 694–703.
Bateson, W. 1894. Materials for the study of variation. MacMillan, London.
Bather, F.A., 1890, British fossil crinoids. I. Historical introduction: Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, ser. 6, v. 5, p. 306‒310.
Bather, F. A. 1890, British fossil crinoids: The classification of the Inadunata Fistulata.
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, v. 5, p. 73-788.
Bather, F.A., 1891 Some alleged cases of misrepresentation: Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, v. 6, p. 480-489. 346
Bather, F.A., 1899, A phylogenetic classification of the Pelmatozoa: British Association
for the Advancement of Science (1898), p. 916–923.
Bather, F.A., 1900, Part III The Echinoderma. The Pelmatozoa, in Lankester, E.R., ed., A
Treatise on Zoology: Adam and Charles Black, London, p. 94–204.
Bather, F.A., 1918, The homologies of the anal plate in Atedon: Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, v. 9, p. 294-302.
Baumiller, T.K., 1993, Survivorship analysis of Paleozoic Crinoidea: effect of filter
morphology on evolutionary rates: Paleobiology, v. 19, p. 304-321.
Baumiller, T.K., 2008, Crinoid ecological morphology: Annual Review of Earth and
Planetary Sciences, v. 36, p. 221-249.
Baumiller, T.K., and Messing, C.G., 2007, Stalked crinoid locomotion and its ecological
and evolutionary implications: Palaeontologica Electronica, v. 10, 2A:10p.
Bell, M.A., and Lloyd, G.T., 2015, strap: an R package for plotting phylogenies against
stratigraphy and assessing their stratigraphic congruence: Palaeontology, v. 58, p.
379–389Benjamini, Y., and Hochberg, Y., 1995, Controlling the false discovery
rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple test: Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Series B, v. 57, p. 289-300.
Benton, M.J., 2000, Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead?:
Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, v. 75, p. 633–648.
Benton, M.J., 2005, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd edition: Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
347
Benton, M.J., 2007, The Phylocode: Beating a dead horse?: Acta Palaeontologica
Polonica, v. 52, p. 651–655.
Bergsten, J., Nilsson, A.N., and Ronquist, F., 2013, Bayesian tests of topology
hypotheses with an example from diving beetles: Systematic Biology, v. 62, p. 660‒
673.
Billings, E., 1857, New species of fossils from Silurian rocks of Canada: Canada Geological
Survey, Report of Progress 1853-1856, Report for the year 1856, p. 247–345.
Billings, W.R., 1887. A new genus and three new species of crinoids from the Trenton
Formation with notes on a large specimen of Dendrocrinus proboscidiatus: The Ottawa
Naturalist (Ottawa Field Naturalists' Club Transactions), v. 111, p. 49‒54.
Blumenbach, J. F., 1802–1804, Abbildungen naturhistorischer Gegenstiinde: Gottingen,
pt. 70, no. 70, 4 p.
Bokma, F., 2008, Detection of "punctuated equilibrium" by Bayesian estimation of
speciation and extinction rates, ancestral character states, and rates of anagenetic
and cladogenetic evolution on a molecular phylogeny: Evolution, v. 62, p. 2718–
26.
Bolker, J. A. and R. A. Raff. 1996, Developmental genetics and traditional homology:
Bioessays v. 18, p. 489-491.
Branson, E.B., and Peck, R.E., 1940, A new cystoid from the Ordovician of Oklahoma: Journal
of Paleontology, v. 14, p. 89–92.
348
Breimer, A. 1978, General morphology, recent crinoids. Pp. T9-T58 in R. C. Moore and
Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part T, Echinodermata
2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.
Brett, C.E., and Taylor, W.L., 1999, Middle Ordovician of the Lake Simcoe area of
Ontario, Canada, in Hess, H., Ausich, W.I., Brett, C.E., and Simms, M.H., Fossil
Crinoids. Cambridge University Press, p. 63-74.
Brigandt, I. 2003, Homology in comparative, molecular, and evolutionary developmental
biology: the radiation of a concept: Journal of Experimental Zoology, 299b:9-17.
Brochu, C.A., 2003, Phylogenetic approaches toward crocodylian history: Annual
Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 31, p. 357–397.
Brochu, C.A., and Sumrall, C.D., 2001, Phylogenetic nomenclature and paleontology:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 754–757.
Brookfield, M. E. 1988, A mid-Ordovician temperate carbonate shelf—the Black River
and Trenton Limestone Groups of southern Ontario, Canada. Sedimentary
Geology, v., 60, p. 137-153.
Brookfield, M. E. and C. E. Brett. 1988, Paleoenvironments of the mid-Ordovician
(Upper Caradocian) Trenton Limestones of southern Ontario, Canada: storm
sedimentation on a shoal-basin shelf model. Sedimentary Geology, v. 57, p. 75-
105.
Brower, J.C., 1973, Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician): Palaeontographica
Americana, v. 7, p. 263–499.
349
Brower, J. C. 1978, Camerates. Pp. T244-T263 in R. C. Moore and Teichert, C. (eds.),
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part T, Echinodermata 2. Geological
Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.
Brower, J.C., 1995, Dendrocrinid crinoids from the Ordovician of northern Iowa and
southern Minnesota: Journal of Paleontology, v.69, p. 939–960.
Brower, J. C., 2001, Flexible crinoids from the Upper Ordovician Maquoketa Formation
of the Northern Midcontinent and the evolution of early flexible crinoids: Journal
of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 370–382.
Brower, J.C., 2002, Cupulocrinus angustatus (Meek and Worthen, 1870), A cladid
crinoid from the Upper Ordovician Maquoketa Formation of the Northern
Midcontinent of the United States: Journal of Paleontology, v. 76, p. 109–122.
Brusatte, S.L., Benton, M.J., Ruta, M. and Lloyd, G.T., 2008, Superiority, competition,
and opportunism in the evolutionary radiation of dinosaurs: Science, v., 321,
p.1485–1488.
Brusatte, S.L., Lloyd, G.T., Wang, S.C., and Norell, M.A., 2014, Gradual assembly of
avian body plan culminated in rapid rates of evolution across the dinosaur-bird
transition: Current Biology, v. 24, p. 2386-2392.
Brusca, R. C. and G. J. Brusca. 2003, Invertebrates (2nd edition). Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland.
Bryant, H. N., 1989, An evaluation of cladistics and character analyses as hypothetico-
deductive procedures and the consequences for character weighting: Systematic
Biology, v. 38, p. 314-227. 350
Butler, M. A., and King, A.A., 2004, Phylogenetic Comparative Analysis: A Modeling
Approach for Adaptive Evolution: The American Naturalist, v. 164, p. 683-695.
Butler, R.J., Upchurch, P., and Norman, D.B., 2008, The phylogeny of the ornithischian
dinosaurs: Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, v. 6, p. 1–40.
Cantino, P.D., and de Queiroz, K., 2010, PhyloCode: International code of phylogenetic
nomenclature, version 4c, 90 p.
Carlson, S. J., 2001, Ghosts of the past, present, and future in brachiopod systematics:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 1109–1118.
Carlson, S.J., and Leighton, L.R., 2001, The phylogeny and classification of
Rhynchonelliformea: The Paleontological Society Special Papers, v. 7, p. 27–51.
Carpenter, P. H., 1882, On the relations of Hybocrinus, Baerocrinus, and Hybocystites.
Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 38, p. 298-212.
Carpenter, P. H., 1884, Report on the Crinoidea—the stalked crinoids. Report on the
scientific results of the H. M. S. Challenger. Zoology, v. 11, p. 1-440.
Carpenter, W. B., 1866, Researches on the structure, physiology and development of
Antedon (Comatula) rosaceus: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, v. 156, p. 671-756.
Carroll, R. L., 1988, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution: WH Freeman, New York,
698 p.
Carroll, S. B. 2008, Evo-Devo and an expanding evolutionary synthesis: a genetic theory
of morphological evolution: Cell, v. 134, p. 25-36.
351
Clark, A. H. 1908. Description of new species of crinoids, chiefly from the collections
made by U.S. Fisheries steamer ‘‘Albatross’’ at the Hawaiian Islands in 1902,
with remarks on the classification of the Comatulida: Proceedings of the U.S.
National Museum, v. 34, p. 209–239.
Clark, A.H., 1915, A monograph of the existing crinoids, part 1: Bulletin of the United
States National Museum 82, p. 1–406.
Clark, A.H., 1921, A monograph of existing crinoids, part 2: Bulletin of the United States
National Museum 82, p. 1–795.
Clark, A.H., and Clark, A.M., 1967, A monograph of existing crinoids, part 5: Bulletin of
the United States National Museum 82, p. 1–806.
Clarke, J.A., and Middleton, K.M., 2008, Mosaicism, modules, and the evolution of
birds: results from a Bayesian approach to the study of morphological evolution
using discrete character data: Systematic Biology, v. 57, p. 185–201.
Clausen, S., Jell, P.A., Legrain, X., and Smith, A.B., 2009, Pelmatozoan arms from the
Middle Cambrian of Australia: bridging the gap between brachioles and
brachials?: Lethaia, v. 42, p. 283–296.
Close, R.A., Friedman, M., Lloyd, G.T. and Benson, R.B., 2015, Evidence for a mid-
Jurassic adaptive radiation in mammals: Current Biology, v. 25, p. 2137‒2142.
Cohen, B.L., Ameziane, N., Eleaume, M., and de Forges, B.R., 2004, Crinoid phylogeny:
a preliminary analysis (Echinodermata: Crinoidea): Marine Biology, v. 144, p.
605–617.
352
Cole, S.R., 2015, A phylogenetic test of the suprageneric classification of diplobathrid
crinoids: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 47, p. 853.
Cole, S.R., in press, Phylogeny and morphologic evolution of the Ordovician Camerata
(Class Crinoidea, Phylum Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology.
Conrad, T.A., 1842, Descriptions of new species of organic remains belonging to the Silurian,
Devonian and Carboniferous Systems of the U. S.: Philadelphia Academy Natural
Sciences, Journal, v. 8, old ser. no. 2, p. 228‒280.
Darwin, C., 1859, On the origin of species by means of natural selection: Murray,
London, 502 p.
David, B., Lefebvre B., Mooi, R., and Parsley, R., 2000, Are homalozoans echinoderms?
An answer from extraxial-axial theory: Paleobiology, v. 26, p. 529–555.
David, B., Roux, M., Messing, C.G., and Ameziane, N., 2006, Revision of the
pentacrinid stalked crinoids of the genus Endoxocrinus (Echinodermata,
Crinoidea), with a study of environmental control characters and its consequences
for taxonomy: Zootaxa, v. 1156, p. 1–50.
Deline, B., and Ausich, W.I., 2011, Testing the plateau: a reexamination of disparity and
morphologic constraints in early Paleozoic crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 37, p. 214–
236.
de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J., 1990, Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy:
phylogenetic definitions of taxon names: Systematic Biology, v. 39, p. 307–322.
353
de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J., 1992, Phylogenetic taxonomy: Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, v. 23, p. 449–480.
de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J., 1994, Toward a phylogenetic system of biological
nomenclature: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 9, p. 27–31.
de Pinna, M. G. G., 1991, Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistics paradigm:
Cladistics, v. 7, p. 387-394.
Didier, G., Royer-Carenzi, M. and Laurin, M., 2012, The reconstructed evolutionary
process with the fossil record: Journal of Theoretical Biology, v. 315, p.26‒37.
Donoghue, P.C.J., and Benton, M.J., 2007, Rocks and clocks: calibrating the Tree of Life using
fossils and molecules: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 22, p. 424‒431.
Donovan, S.K., 1988, The early evolution of the Crinoidea, in Paul, C.R.C., and Smith, A.B.,
eds, Echinoderm phylogeny and evolutionary biology: Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 235–
244.
Donovan, S.K., and Harper, D.A.T., 2003, Llandovery crinoidea of the British Isles, including
description of a new species from the Kilbride Formation (Telychian) of western Ireland:
Geological Journal, v. 38, p. 85–97.
Donovan, S.K., Webster, G.D., and Waters, J.A., 2016, A last peak in diversity: the
stalked echinoderms of the Permian of Timor: Geology Today, v. 32, p. 179-185.
dos Reis, M., Donoghue, P.C., and Yang, Z., 2016. Bayesian molecular clock dating of
species divergences in the genomics era: Nature Reviews Genetics, v. 17, p. 71‒
80.
354
Drummond, A.J., and Rambaut, A. 2007, BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling
trees: BMC Evolutionary Biology: v. 7, doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-214.
Drummond, A. J., and Stadler, T., 2016, Bayesian phylogenetic estimation of fossil ages:
arXiv, preprint 1601.07447v1
Eckert, J.D., 1987, Illemocrinus amphiatus, a new cladid inadunate crinoid from the
Middle Ordovician of Ontario: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 24, p. 860-
865.
Eichwald, E., von, 1840, Ueber das Silurische Schichtensystem in Ethlands, St. Petersburg, 200
p.
Eldredge, N., and Gould, S.J., 1972, Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic
gradualism. in. Schopf, T.J.M., (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper
and Company, San Fransisco, p. 82‒115.
Erwin, D.H., 1992, A preliminary classification of evolutionary radiations: Historical
Biology, v. 6, p. 133-147.
Erwin, D.H., 2007; Disparity: morphological pattern and developmental context:
Palaeontology, v. 50, p. 57-73.
Erwin, D. E., and E. H. Davidson, 2009, The evolution of hierarchical gene regulatory
networks. Nature Reviews Genetics, v. 10, p. 141-148.
Etter, W., and Hess, H., 2015, Reviews and syntheses: the first records of deep-sea fauna
– a correction and discussion: Biogeosciences, v. 12, p. 6453–6462.
Feller, W., 1968, An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, v. 1 (third
edition): New York, Wiley, 509 p.
355
Feuda, R., and Smith, A.B., 2015, Phylogenetic signal dissection identifies the root of
starfishes: PLoS ONE, v. 10.5, e0123331.
Felsenstein, J., 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist, v.
126, p.1‒15.
Felsenstein, J., 2004, Inferring phylogenies, vol 2: Sunderland, Sinauer Associates, 664 p.
Foote, M. 1992, Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: v. 89, p. 7325-7329.
Foote, M., 1994, Morphological disparity in Ordovician–Devonian crinoids and the early
saturation of morphological space: Paleobiology, v. 20, p. 320–344.
Foote, M., 1995, Morphological diversification of paleozoic crinoids: Paleobiology, v.
21, p. 273-299.
Foote, M., 1996, On the probability of ancestors in the fossil record: Paleobiology, v. 22,
p. 141–151.
Foote, M., 1996, Ecological controls on the evolutionary recovery of post-Paleozoic
crinoids: Science, v. 274, p. 1492-1495.
Foote, M., 1997, Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability:
Paleobiology, v. 23, p. 278–300.
Foote, M., 1999, Morphological diversity in the evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic and
post-Paleozoic crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 25, p. 1–115.
Foote, M., 2000, Origination and extinction components of taxonomic diversity: general
problems: Paleobiology, v. 26, p. 74-102.
Foote, M., and Miller, A., 2007, Principles of Paleontology. Macmillian.
356
Foote, M., and Raup, D.M., 1996, Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa:
Paleobiology, v. 22, p. 121–140.
Foote, M., and Sepkoski, J.J., 1999, Absolute measures of the completeness of the fossil
record: Nature, v. 398, p. 415–417.
Forey, P.L., Fortey, R.A., Kenrick, P., and Smith, A.B., 2004, Taxonomy and fossils: a
critical appraisal: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, v. 359, p. 639–653.
Frest, T.J., Strimple, H.L., and McGinnis, M.R., 1979, Two new crinoids from the Ordovician of
Virginia and Oklahoma, with notes on pinnulation in the Disparida: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 53, p. 399–415.
Gahn, F.J., and Kammer, T.W., 2002, The cladid crinoid Barycrinus from the Burlington
Limestone (Early Osagean) and the phylogenetics of Mississippian botryocrinids:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 76, p. 123–133.
Garstang, W., 1921.,The theory of Recapitulation: a critical re-statement of the biogenic
law: Journal of the Linnaean Society of London, v. 35, p. 81-101.
Gavryushkina, A., Welch, D., Stadler, T., and Drummond, A. J., 2014, Bayesian
inference of sampled ancestor trees for epidemiology and fossil calibration: PLoS
Computational Biology, v. 10, e1003919.
Gavryshkina, A., Heath, T.A., Ksepka, D.T., Stadler, T., Welch, D., and Drummond,
A.J., 2015, Bayesian total evidence dating reveals the recent crown radiation of
penguins: arXiv, preprint 1506.04797
357
Gelman, A. and Rubin, D. B., 1992, Inference from iterative simulation using multiple
sequences: Statistical Science, v. 7, p. 457–472.
Gervais, F.L.P., 1835, In Guérin, ed., Dictionnaire pittoresque d’histoire naturelle et des
phénomènes de la nature, vol. 3, p. 48–49, Lenormand, Paris.
Gilbert, S. F., and J. A., Bolker. 2001, Homologies of process and modular elements of
embryonic construction Pp. 437-456 in G. P. Wagner (ed.), The Character
Concept in Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, London.
Gil Cid, M.D., Alonso, P.D, and Pobes, E.S., 1996, Reconstrucción y modo de videa de
Heviacrinus melendezi nov. gen. nov. sp. (Disparida, Iocrinidae), primer crinoide descrito
del Ordovícico medio de los Montes de Toledo (España): Revista de la Sociedad
Geológica España, v. 9, no. 1-2, p. 19‒27.
Goldfuss, G.A., 1826-44, Petrefacta Germaniae, tam ea, Quae in Museo Universitatis Regiae
Borussicae Fridericiae Wilhelmiae Rhenanea, serventur, quam alia quaecunque in Museis
Hoeninghusiano Muensteriano aliisque, extant, iconibus et descriiptionns illustrata. --
Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der Petrefacten Deutschlands und der Angränzende
Länder, unter Mitwirkung des Hern Grafen Georg zu Münster, herausgegeben von August
Goldfuss. v. 1 (1826-1833), Divisio prima. Zoophytorum reliquiae, p. 1-114; Divisio
secunda. Radiariorum reliquiae, p. 115-221 [Echinodermata]; Divisio tertia. Annulatorium
reliquiae, p. 222-242; v. 2 (1834-40), Divisio quarta. Molluscorum acephalicorum reliquiae.
I. Bivalvia, p. 65-286; II. Brachiopoda, p. 287-303; III. (1841-44), Divisio quinta.
Molluscorum gasteropodum reliquiae, p. 1-121; atlas of plates, 1–199, Düsseldorf, Arnz &
Co. 358
Goldring, W., 1923, The Devonian crinoids of the state of New York: New York State Museum,
Memoir 16, p. 1‒670.
Gorscak, E. and O‘Connor, P.M., 2016, Time-calibrated models support congruency
between Cretaceous continental rifting and titanosaurian evolutionary history:
Biology Letters, v. 12, p.20151047.
Gorzelak, P., Salamon, M.A., Trzęsiok, D., Lach, R., and Baumiller, T.K., 2015,
Diversity dynamics of post‐Palaeozoic crinoids–in quest of the factors affecting
crinoid macroevolution: Lethaia, v. 49, p. 231–244.
Gould, S. J., 1973, Systematic pluralism and the uses of history: Systematic Zoology, v.
22, p. 322-324.
Gould, S. J., 1977, Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.
Gould, S. J., 1989, Wonderful Life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history. Norton,
New York.
Gould, S.J., Gilinsky, N.L, and German, R.Z., 1987, Asymmetry of lineages and the
direction of evolutionary time: Science, v. 236, p. 1437–1441.
Gower, J.C., 1971, A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties:
Biometrics, v. 27, p. 857-871.
Grant, P.R., and Grant,B.R., 2002, Adaptive radiation of Darwin’s finches: American
Journal of Science, v. 90, p. 130-139.
Guensburg, T.E., 2010, Alphacrinus new genus and origin of the disparid clade: Journal
of Paleontology, v. 84, p. 1209–1216. 359
Guensburg, T.E., 2012, Phylogenetic implications of the oldest crinoids: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 86, p. 455–461.
Guensburg, T.E., and Sprinkle, J., 2003, The oldest known crinoids (Early Ordovician,
Utah) and a new crinoid plate homology system: Bulletins of American
Paleontology, v. 364, 43 p.
Guensburg, T.E., and Sprinkle, J., 2007, Phylogenetic implications of the Protocrinoida:
Blastozoans are not ancestral to crinoids: Annals de Paleontologie, v. 93, p. 277–
290.
Guensburg, T.E., and Sprinkle, J., 2009, Solving the mystery of crinoid ancestry: new
fossil evidence of arm origin and development: Journal of Paleontology, v. 83, p.
350–364.
Guensburg, T.E., Blake, D.B., Sprinkle, J., and Mooi, R., 2016, Crinoid ancestry without
blastozoans: Acta Palaeontological Polonica, v. 61, p. 253–266.
Guillerme, T. and Cooper, N., 2016, Effects of missing data on topological inference
using a Total Evidence approach: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, v. 94,
p.146–158.
Gyllenhaal, J.A., 1772, Beskrifning på de så kallade Crystall-äplen och kalkbollar, såsom
petreficerade Djur af Echini genus, eller dess närmaste slägtingar. Kongl. Svenska
Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar: v. 33, p. 239–261.
360
Haeckel, E. 1866., Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzüge der
organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles
Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie. Georg Reimer, Berlin.
Hall, B. K., 2002, Palaeontology and evolutionary developmental biology: a science of
the nineteenth and twenty-first centuries: Palaeontology, v. 45, p. 647-669.
Hall, B. K , 2003, Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and
homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution: Biology
Reviews, v. 78, p. 409-433.
Hall, J., 1847., Palaeontology of New York Volume I. Containing descriptions of the organic
remains of the lower division of the New-York system (equivalent of the Lower Silurian
rocks of Europe), Natural History of New York: New York, C. Van Benthuysen, Albany,
v. 6, 338 p.
Hall, J., 1852, Palaeontology of New York Volume II. Containing descriptions of the organic
remains of the lower middle division of the New-York system, Natural History of New
York: New York, D. Appleton & Co. and Wiley & Putnam; Boston, Gould, Kendall, &
Lincoln, v. 6, 362 p.
Hall, J., 1858, Chapter 8. Palaeontology of Iowa. in Hall, J. and Whitney, J.D., Report of the
Geological Survey of the state of Iowa. Embracing the results of investigations made during
portions of the years 1855, 56 &. 57, v. 1, part II; Palaeontology, p. 473–724.
Hall, J., 1859, Contributions to the palaeontology of Iowa, being descriptions of new species of
Crinoidea and other fossils: Geological Report of Iowa Supplement to vol. I, part II, p. 1-92.
361
Hall, J., 1866, Descriptions of new species of Crinoidea and other fossils from the Lower
Silurian strata of the age of the Hudson-River Group and Trenton Limestone: Albany,
privately distributed reprint,17 p.
Hara, Y., M. Yamaguchi, K. Akasaka, H. Nakano, M. Nonaka, and S. Amemiya. 2006,
Expression patterns of Hox genes in larvae of the sea lily Metacrinus rotundus:
Development Genes and Evolution , v. 216, p. 797-809.
Harmon, L. J., J. B. Losos, T. J. Davies, R. G. Gillespie, J. L. Gittleman, W. B. Jennings,
K. H. Kozak, M. A. McPeek, F. Morena-Roark, T. J. Near, A. Purvis, R. E.
Ricklefs, D. Schluter, J. A. Schulte II, O. Seehausen, B. L. Sidlauskas, O. Torres-
Carvajal, J. T. Weir, and A. Ø. Mooers. 2010. Early bursts of body size and shape
evolution are rate in comparative data: Evolution, v. 64, p. 2385-2396.
Harnik, P. G., P. C. Fitzgerald, J. L. Payne, and S. J. Carson 2014, Phylogenetic signal in
extinction selectivity in Devonian terebratulide brachiopods, Paleobiology, v. 40,
p. 679-692.
Harrison, L. B. and Larsson, H.C.E., 2015, Among-character rate variation distributions
in phylogenetic analysis of discrete morphologic characters: Systematic Biology, v.
64, p. 307–324.
Hays, B., Rouse, G., Thomas, J., and Messing, C., 2015. Can morphology support new
molecular phylogenies of Antedonidae (Crinoidea: Comatulida)?: 15th
International Echinoderm Conference Abstracts, p. 41–42.
362
Heath, T.A., and Moore, B.R., 2014, Bayesian inference of species divergence times, in
Chen, M-H., Kuo, L., and Lewis, P.O., Bayesian Phylogenetics: Methods,
Algorithms, and Applications: CRC Press, Oxfordshire, p. 277–318.
Heath, T.A., Hedtke, S.M., and Hillis, D.M., 2008, Taxon sampling and the accuracy of
phylogenetic analyses: Journal of Systematics and Evolution, v. 46, 239–257.
Heath, T.A., Huelsenbeck, J.P. and Stadler, T., 2014, The fossilized birth–death process
for coherent calibration of divergence-time estimates: Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, v. 111, p. E2957–E2966.
Hennig, W., 1966, Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Heled, J., and Bouckaert, R.R., 2013, Looking for trees in the forest: summary tree from
posterior samples: BMC Evolutionary Biology, v. 13, 221.
Hemery, L.G., Roux, M., Ameziane, N., and Eleaume, M., 2013, High-resolution crinoid
phyletic inter-relationships derived from molecular data: Cahiers De Biologie
Marine, v. 54, p. 511–523.
Hess, H., and Messing, C.G., 2011, Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology Part T,
Echinodermata 2, Revised, Crinoidea 3, in Ausich, W.I., coordinating author,
Seldon, P., ed., University of Kansas and Paleontological Institute, Lawrence,
Kansas, 216 p.
Hess, H., Ausich, W.I., Brett, C.E., and Simms, M.J., 1999, Fossil crinoids:
Cambridge University Press, 275 p.
363
Hetherington, A.J., Sherratt, E., Ruta, M., Wilkinson, M., Deline, B., and Donoghue,
P.C., 2015, Do cladistic and morphometric data capture common patterns of
morphological disparity?: Palaeontology, v. 58, p. 393-399
Holland, S.M., 2016, The non-uniformity of fossil preservation: Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B, v. 371, 20150130.
Holterhoff, P.F., 1997, Filtration models, guilds, and biofacies: Crinoid paleoecology of
the Stanton Formation (Upper Pennsylvanian), midcontinent, North America:
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 130, p. 177-208.
Holtz, T.R., 1996, Phylogenetic taxonomy of the Coelurosauria (Dinosauria: Theropoda):
Journal of Paleontology, v. 70, p. 536–538.
Holtz, T.R., 1998, A new phylogeny of the carnivorous dinosaurs: Gaia, v. 15, p. 5–61.
Hopkins, M.J. and Smith, A.B., 2015, Dynamic evolutionary change in post-Paleozoic
echinoids and the importance of scale when interpreting changes in rates of
evolution: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 112, p.3758–
3763.
Huelsenbeck, J.P., Ronquist, F., and Teslenko, M., 2015, Command Reference for
MrBayes ver. 3.2.5: http://mrbayes.sourceforge.net/manual.php (accessed June
2016).
Huelsenbeck, J.P., Larget, B., Miller, R.E. and Ronquist, F., 2002, Potential applications
and pitfalls of Bayesian inference of phylogeny: Systematic Biology, v. 51),
p.673–688.
364
Hughes, M., Gerber, S., and Wills, M.A., 2013, Clades reach highest morphological
disparity early in their evolution: Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, v. 110, p. 13875-13879.
Hunt, G., 2008, Gradual or pulsed evolution: when should punctuational explanations be
preferred?: Paleobiology, v. 34, p.360–377.
Hunt, G., and Carrano, M.T, 2010, Models and methods for analyzing phenotypic
evolution in lineages and clades, in Alroy, J., and Hunt, G., (eds.), Short Course
on Quantitative Methods in Paleobiology. Paleontological Society, New Haven,
Connecticut, p. 245–269.
Hunt, G., and Slater, G., 2016, Integrating paleontological and phylogenetic approaches
to macroevolution: Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, v. 47.
P. 189–213.
Hunt, G., Bell, M.A., and Travis, M.P., 2008, Evolution toward a new adaptive optimum:
phenotypic evolution in a fossil stickleback lineage: Evolution, v. 62, p. 700–710.
Hyman, L., 1955, The Invertebrates, Vol. 5. Phylum Echinodermata. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Jablonski, D., 2008, Biotic interactions and macroevolution: extensions and mismatches
across scales and levels: Evolution, v. 62, p. 715-739.
Jablonski, D., and Finarelli, J.A., 2009, Congruence of morphologically-defined genera
with molecular phylogenies: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v.
106, p. 8262–8266.
365
Jablonski, in press, Macroevolutionary theory, in Scheiner, S.M., and Mindell, D.P.,
(eds.), The theory of evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jaekel, O., 1894, Über die Morphogenie und Phylogenic der Crinoiden: Sitzungsberichten der
Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde, Jahrgang 1894, v. 4, p. 101–121.
Jaekel, O., 1902, Über verschiedene Wege phylogenetischer Entwicklung: 5th Verhandlungen
der International Zoological-Congress Berlin, 1901, p. 1058‒1117.
Jaekel, O., 1906, Der oberste Lenneschiefer zwischen Letmathe und Iserlohn in Schmidt, W.E.,
Der oberste Lenneschiefer zwischen Letmathe und Iserlohn: Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Geologischen Geselleschaft, v. 57, p. 544.
Jaekel, O., 1918, Phylogenie und System der Pelmatozoen: Paläeontologische Zeitschrift,
v. 3, p. 1–128.
Kammer, T.W., Aerosol filtration theory applied to Mississippian deltaic crinoids:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 59, p. 551-560.
Kammer, T.W., 2001, Phenotypic bradytely in the Costalocrinus-Barycrinus lineage of
Paleozoic cladid crinoids: Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 383‒389.
Kammer, T.W. 2008, Paedomorphosis as an adaptive response in pinnulate cladid
crinoids from the Burlington Limestone (Mississippian, Osagean) of the
Mississippi Valley. Pp. 177-195 in W. I. Ausich and G. D. Webster (eds.),
Echinoderm Paleobiology, University of Indiana Press, Bloomington.
Kammer, T.W., and Ausich, W.I., 1992, Advanced cladid crinoids from the Middle
Mississippian of the east-central United States. primitive-grade calyces: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 66, p. 461-480.Kammer and Ausich, 1993
366
Kammer, T.W., and Ausich. W.I., 1996, Primitive cladid crinoids from upper Osagean-lower
Meramecian (Mississippian) rocks of east-central United States: Journal of Paleontology, v.
70, p. 835-866.
Kammer, T.W., and Ausich, W.I., 2006, The “age of crinoids”: a Mississippian
biodiversity spike coincident with widespread carbonate ramps. Palaios, v. 2, p. 238-
248.
Kammer, T.W., and Ausich, W.I., 2007.,New cladid and flexible crinoids from the
Mississippian (Tournaisian, Ivorian) of England and Wales: Palaeontology, v. 50,
p. 1039-1050.
Kammer, T.W., and Gahn, F.J., 2003, Primitive cladid crinoids from the early Osagean
Burlington Limestone and the phylogenetics of Mississippian species of
Cyathocrinites: Journal of Paleontology, v. 77, p. 121–138.
Kammer, T.W., Sumrall, C.D., Zamora, S., Ausich, W.I., and Deline, B., 2013, Oral
region homologies in Paleozoic crinoids and other plesiomorphic pentaradiate
echinoderms: PLoS ONE, v. 8.11, e77989.
Kass, R.E., and Raftery, A.E., 1995, Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, v. 90, p. 773‒795.
Kelley, P.H., Fastovsky, D.E., Wilson, M.A., Laws, R.A., and Raymond, A., 2013, From
paleontology to paleobiology: a half-century of progress in understanding life
history: Geological Society of America Special Paper, v. 500, p. 191–232.
367
Kelly, S.M., 1982, Origin of the crinoid orders Disparida and Cladida: possible inadunate
cup plate homologies: Third North American Paleontological Convention
(Montreal), Proceedings Abstracts, Montreal, Canada, p. 285–290.
Kelly, S.M., 1986, Classification and evolution of class Crinoidea: Fourth North
American Paleontological Convention, Abstracts, p. A23.
Kesling, R.V., and Paul, C.R.C., 1968, New species of Porocrinidae and brief remarks upon
these unusual crinoids: University of Michigan Contributions from Museum of
Paleontology, v. 22, p. 1–32.
Kier, P.M., 1952, Echinoderms of the Middle Devonian Silica Formation of Ohio: University of
Michigan Contributions from Museum of Paleontology, v. 10, p. 59‒81.
Kirk, E., 1914, Notes on the fossil crinoid genus Homocrinus Hall. United States
National Museum Proceedings: v. 46, p. 473–483.
Kitazawa, K., Oji, T., and Sunamura, M., 2007, Food composition of crinoids (Crinoidea:
Echinodermata) in relation to stalk length and fan density: their paleoecological
implications: Marine Biology, v. 152, p. 959-968.
Kirk, E. 1944, Cymbiocrinus, a new inaduate crinoid genus from the Upper
Mississippian: American Journal of Science, v. 242, p. 233-245.
Kolata, D.R., 1982, Camerates, in Sprinkle, J., ed., Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide
Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma: The University of Kansas
Paleontological Contributions, Monograph, v. 1, p. 170–205.
Ksepka, D.T., Parham, J.F., Allman, J.F., Benton, M.J., Carrano, M.T., Cranston, K.A.,
Donoghue, P.C., Head, J.J., Hermsen, E.J., Irmis, R.B. and Joyce, W.G., 2015. The Fossil 368
Calibration Database—A new resource for divergence dating: Systematic biology, v. 64,
p.853‒859.
Koenig, J.W., and Meyer, D.L., 1965, Two new crinoids from the Devonian of New York:
Journal of Paleontology, v. 39, p. 391‒397.
Lahaye, M.C., and Jangoux, M., 1987, The skeleton of the stalked stages of the comatulid
crinoid Antedon bifida (Echinodermata): Zoomorphology, v. 107, p. 58–65.
Lane, N.G., 1970, Lower and Middle Ordovician crinoids from west-central Utah: Brigham
Young University Geology Studies, v. 17, p. 3‒17.
Lane, N.G., 1978, Historical review of classification of Crinoidea, in Moore, R.C., and
Teichert, C., eds., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T, Echinodermata 2,
Volume 2: Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press,
Lawrence, p. T348–T358.
Laubichler, M.D., 2000, Homology in development and the development of the
homology concept: American Zoologist, 40, p. 777-788.
Lee, M.S., and Palci, A., 2015, Morphological phylogenetics in the genomic age: Current
Biology, v. 25, p. R922–R929.
Lee, M.S., Cau, A., Naish, D. and Dyke, G.J., 2014, Morphological clocks in
paleontology, and a mid-Cretaceous origin of crown Aves: Systematic Biology, v.
63, p. 442‒449.
Lefebvre, B. G. J. Eble, N. Navarro, and B. David. 2006, Diversification of atypical
Paleozoic echinoderms: a quantitative survey of patterns of stylophoran disparity,
diversity, and geography: Paleobiology, v. 32, p. 483-510. 369
Lieberman, B. S., 2000, Paleobiogeography: Using Fossils to Study Global Change, Plate
Tectonics, and Evolution. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Le Menn, J., and Spjeldnaes, N., 1996, Un nouveau crinoïde Dimerocrinitidae (Camerata,
Diplobathrida) de l'Ordovicien supérieur du Maroc: Rosfacrinus robustus nov. gen., nov.
sp.: Geobios, v. 29, p. 341–351.
Lepage, T., Bryant, D., Philippe, H. and Lartillot, N., 2007, A general comparison of
relaxed molecular clock models: Molecular Biology and Evolution, v. 24, p.
2669‒2680.
Leuckart, R. von, 1848, Uber de Morphologie und die Verandtschaftsverhältnisse der
wibellosen Thiere: Friedrich ,Vieweg and Sohn, Braunschweig, 180 p.
Lewis, P.O., 2001, A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete
morphological character data: Systematic biology, v. 50, p. 913‒925.
Lloyd, G.T., 2016, Estimating morphological diversity and tempo with discrete character-
taxon matrices: implementation, challenges, progress, and future directions:
Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, v. 118, p. 131-151.
Lloyd, G.T., Wang, S.C. and Brusatte, S.L., 2012, Identifying heterogeneity in rates of
morphological evolution: discrete character change in the evolution of lungfish
(Sarcopterygii; Dipnoi): Evolution, v. 66, p.330‒348.
Losos, J.B., 2010, Adaptive radiation, ecological opportunity, and evolutionary
determinism: The American Naturalist, v. 175, p. 623-639.
Maddison, D.R., 1991, The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most-
parsimonious trees: Systematic Zoology, v. 40, p. 315‒328.
370
Matsumoto, H., 1929, Outline of a classification of Echinodermata: Science Reports of
the Tohoku Imperial University, Sendai, Japan, Second Series (Geology): v. 8, p.
27–33.
Matzke, N.J., 2015, The evolution of antievolution policies after Kitzmiller v. Dover.
Science, p.aad4057.
Matzke, N.J. and Wright, A., 2016, Ground truthing tip-dating methods using fossil
Canidae reveals major differences in performance: Biology Letters, v. 12,
2010328, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2016.0328.
McIntosh, G.C., 1984, Devonian cladid inadunate crinoids: family Botryocrinidae Bather,
1899: Journal of Paleontology, v. 58, p. 1260–1281.
McIntosh, G.C., 1986, Phylogeny of the dicyclic inadunate crinoid order Cladida: Fourth
North American Paleontological Convention Abstracts A, v. 31.
McIntosh, G.C., 2001, Devonian cladid crinoids: families Glossocrinidae Goldring, 1923,
and Rutkowskicrinidae new family: Journal of Paleontology, v. 75, p. 783–807.
McKerrow, W.S., Dewey, J.F. and Scotese, C.R., 1991, The Ordovician and Silurian
development of the Iapetus ocea: Special Papers in Palaeontology, v. 44, p.165-
178.
Meek, F.B., 1871, On some new Silurian (Ordovician) crinoids and shells: American
Journal of Science, ser. 3, v. 1, p. 295‒299.
Meek, F.B., 1873, Descriptions of invertebrate fossils of the Silurian and Devonian
systems: Ohio Geological Survey, v. 1, pt. 2, p. 1–243.
371
Meek, F.B., and Worthen, A.H., 1865, Descriptions of new species of crinoidea, etc. from the
Paleozoic rocks of Illinois and some of the adjoining states: Proceedings of the Academy
of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v. 17, p. 143‒155.
Meek, F.B., and Worthen, A.H., 1869, Descriptions of New Crinoidea and Echinoidea,
from the Carboniferous Rocks of the Western States, with a Note on the Genns
Onychaster: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v.
21, p. 67–83.
Messing, C.G., and White, C.M., 2001, A revision of the Zenometridae (new rank)
(Echinodermata, Crinoidea, Comatulidina): Zoologica Scripta, v. 30, p. 159–180.
Meyer, D.L., and Macurda, B.D., 1977, Adaptive radiation of the comatulid crinoids:
Paleobiology, v. 3, p. 74–82.
Meyer, D.L., Ausich, W.I., and Terry, R.E., 1989, Comparative taphonomy of
echinoderms in carbonate facies: Fort Payne Formation (Lower Mississippian) of
Kentucky and Tennessee: Palaios, v. 4, p. 533-552.
Miller, J.S., 1821, A Natural History of the Crinoidea, or Lily-Shaped Animals; with
Observations on the Genera, Asteria, Euryale, Comatula and Marsupites: Bristol,
C. Frost, 150 p.
Miller, S.A., 1883, The American Palaeozoic fossils: a catalogue of the genera and
species, with names of authors, dates, places of publication, groups of books in
which found, and the etymology and significance of the words, and an
introduction devoted to the stratigraphical geology of the Palaeozoic rocks, 2nd
edition, Echinodermata, Cincinnati, Ohio, p. 247-334.
372
Miller, S.A. and Gurley, W.F.E., 1894, New genera and species of Echinodermata:
Illinois State Museum of Natural History, v. 5, 53 p.
Miller, S.A., and Gurley, W.F.E., 1895, New and interesting species of Palaeozoic
fossils: Illinois State Museum, Bulletin 7, 89, p.
Miquel, J. 1894. Note sur la géologie des terrains primaires du département de l’Hérault.
Le Cambrien et l’Arenig: Bulletin de la Société d’étude des Sciences naturelles de
Béziers v. 17, p. 5–36.
Mladenov, P. V. and F. S. Chia, 1983, Development, settling behavior, metamorphosis,
and pentacrinoid feeding and growth of the feather star Florometra serratissima.
Marine Biology, v. 73, p. 309-323.
Mooi, R. B. and B. David. 1997, Skeletal homologies of echinoderms. Pp. 305-335 in J.
A. Waters and C. G. Maples (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms, Paleontological
Society Papers 3.
Mooi, R., and David, B., 1998, Evolution within a bizarre phylum; homologies of the
first echinoderms: American Zoologist, v. 38, p. 965–974.
Mooi, R., and David, B., 2008, Radial symmetry, the anterior/posterior axis, and
echinoderm Hox genes: Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics,
v. 39, p. 43–62.
Mooi, R., B. David, and G. A. Wray, 2005, Arrays in rays: terminal addition in
echinoderms and its correlation with gene expression: Evolution and
Development, v. 7, p. 542-555.
373
Mooi, R. B., David, B., and D., Marchland. 1994, Echinoderm skeletal homologies:
classical morphology meets modern phylogenetics. Pp. 87-95 in B. David, A.
Guille, J. Féral, and M Roux (eds.), Echinoderms Through Time. A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Moore, R.C., 1962, Ray structures of some inadunate crinoids. University of Kansas
Paleontological Contributions, v. 5, 1–47.
Moore, R.C., and Laudon, L.R., 1943, Evolution and classification of Paleozoic crinoids:
Geological Society of America Special Paper, no. 46, 151 p.
Moore, R.C., and Teichert, C., eds., 1978, Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T,
Echinodermata 2: Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press,
Lawrence, Kansas, 1027 p.
Moore, R. C., Lalicker, C.G., and Fischer, A.G., 1952, Invertebrate Fossils: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, 766 p.
Moore, R.C., Lane, N.G., and Strimple, H.L., 1978, Order Cladida Moore and Laudon,
1943, in Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds: Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2: Geological Society of America and
University of Kansas Press, Kansas, p. T578–T759.
Moore, R.C., Lane, N.G., Strimple, H.L., and Sprinkle, J., 1978, Systemetic Descriptions,
Crinoidea, Order Disparida, in Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds: Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2: Geological Society of
America and University of Kansas Press, Kansas, p. T520–T564.
374
Mortensen, T. 1920, Studies in the development of crinoids. Papers from the Department
of Marine Biology, Carnegie Institution of Washing 16.
Müller, J., 1841, Über die Gattungen und Arten der Comatulen: Archiv für
Naturgeschichte, v. 7, p. 179–189.
Nakano, H., T. Hibino, T. Oji, Y. Hara, and S. Amemiya. 2003, Larval stages of a living
sea lily (stalked crinoid echinoderm): Nature, v. 421, p. 158-160.
O’Malley, C.E., Ausich, W.I., and Chin, Y., 2016, Deep echinoderm phylogeny
preserved in organic molecules from Paleozoic fossils: Geology, v. 44, p. 379–
382.
O'Meara, B.C., C. Ané, M. J. Sanderson, P. C. Wainwright, and T. Hansen. 2006, Testing
for Different Rates of Continuous Trait Evolution Using Likelihood. Evolution, v.
60, p. 922-933.
Orbigny, A.D. d', 1849, Cours élémentaire de paléontologie et géologie Stratigraphiques:
v. 1, 299 p. Paris, Victor Masson.
O’Reilly, J.E., Puttick, M.N., Parry, L., Tanner, A.R., Tarver, J.E., Fleming, J., Pisani, D.,
and Donoghue, P.C.J., 2016, Bayesian methods outperform parsimony but at the
expense of precision in the estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological
data: Biology Letters, v. 12, 20160081, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0081
Oyston, J.W., Hughes, M., Wagner, P.J., Gerber, S., and Wills, M.A., 2015, What limits
the morphological disparity of clades?: Interface Focus, v. 5, 20150042, 18 p.
375
Padian, K., Hutchinson, J.R., and Holtz, T.R., 1999, Phylogenetic definitions and
nomenclature of the major taxonomic categories of the carnivorous Dinosauria
(Theropoda): Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, v. 19, p. 69–80.
Paradis, E., Claude, J. and Strimmer, K., 2004, APE: analyses of phylogenetics and
evolution in R language: Bioinformatics, v. 20, p. 289–290.
Parks, W.A., 1908, On an occurrence of Hybocystites in Ontario: Ottawa Naturalist, v.
21, p. 232– 236.
Patterson, C., 1982, Morphological characters and homology. Pp. 21-74 in K. A. Joysey
and A. E. Friday (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic
Press, New York.
Paul, C.R.C., 1968, Macrocystella Callaway, the earliest glyptocystitid cystoid:
Palaeontology, v. 11, p. 580–600.
Paul, C.R.C., 1972, Cheirocystella antiqua gen. et sp. nov. from the Lower Ordovician of
western Utah and its bearing on the evolution of the Cheirocrinidae (Rhombifera:
Glyptocystitida): Brigham Young University Geology Studies, v. 19, p. 15–63.
Paul, C.R.C., 1988, The phylogeny of the cystoids, in Paul, C.R.C., and Smith, A.B., eds.,
Echinoderm phylogeny and evolutionary biology: Clarendon Press, Oxford, p.
199–213.
Paul, C.R.C., and Smith, A.B., 1984, The early radiation and phylogeny of echinoderms:
Biological Reviews v. 59, p. 443–481.
Pennant, T., 1777, The British Zoology (4th edition, volume 4): London, Warrington.
376
Pennell, M.W., Harmon, L.J., Uyeda, J.C., 2014, Is there room for punctuated
equilibrium in macroevolution?: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 29, p. 23‒
32.
Peters, S.E., and Ausich, W.I., 2008, A sampling-adjusted macroevolutionary history for
Ordovician-Early Silurian crinoids: Paleobiology, v. 34, p. 104‒116.
Phillips, J., 1836, Illustrations of the geology of Yorkshire, or a description of the strata
and organic remains, Pt. 2, The Mountain Limestone districts, 2nd edition:
London, John Murray, p. 203–208.
Phillips, J., 1839, Encrinites and zoophytes of the Silurian System, in Murchison, R.T.,
ed., The Silurian System, p. 670‒675Phillips, J., 1841, Figures and descriptions of
the Palaeozoic fossils of Cornwall, Devon, and West Somerset; observed in the
course of the ordinance geological survey of that district: London, Longmans,
Brown, Green, and Longmans, 232 p.
Pisani, D., Feuda, R., Peterson, and Smith, A.B., 2012, Resolving phylogenetic signal
from noise when divergence is rapid: A new look at the old problem of
echinoderm class relationships: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, v. 62, p.
27–34.
Pollitt, J.R., Fortey, R.A. and Wills, M.A., 2005. Systematics of the trilobite families
Lichidae Hawle and Corda, 1847 and Lichakephalidae Tripp, 1957: The
application of Bayesian inference to morphological data: Journal of Systematic
Palaeontology, v. 3, p. 225‒241.
377
Potter, D., and Freudenstein, J.V., 2005, Character-based phylogenetic Linnaean
classification: taxa should be both ranked and monophyletic: Taxon, v. 54, p.
1033–1035.
Purvis, A. 2008, Phylogenetic approaches to the study of extinction: Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, v. 39, p. 301-319.
Pyron, R.A., 2011, Divergence Time Estimation Using Fossils as Terminal Taxa and the
Origins of Lissamphibia: Systematic Biology, v. 60, p. 466‒481.
Pyron, R.A., 2015, Post-molecular systematics and the future of phylogenetics: Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, v. 30, p. 394–389.
Rabosky, D.L., 2009, Ecological limits and diversification rate: alternative paradigms to
explain the variation in species richness among clades and regions: Ecology
Letters, v. 12, p. 735–743.
Rabosky, D.L., and McCune, A.R., 2009, Reinventing species selection with molecular
phylogenies: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 25, p. 68–74.
Rabosky, D.L., and Adams, D.C., 2012, Rates of morphological evolution are correlated
with species richness in salamanders: Evolution, v. 66, p. 1807-1818.
Raff, R. A., 2007, Written in stone: fossils, genes, and evo-devo: Nature Reviews
Genetics v. 8, p. 911-920.
Rannala, B., and Yang, Z., 1996, Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees:
a new method of phylogenetic inference: Journal of Molecular Evolution, v. 43, p.
304–311.
378
Rasmussen, H. W., 1978, Evolution of articulate crinoids. Pp T302-T316 in R. C. Moore
and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part T,
Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press,
Lawrence.
Rasmussen, H.W., 1978, Articulata, in Moore, R.C., and Teichert, K. eds., Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology. Part T, Echinodermata 2, vol. 2: The Geological
Society of America, and University of Kansas Press, Boulder and Lawrence, p.
T813–T997.
Rambaut, A., and Drummond, A.J., 2015, TreeAnnotator v2 2.1: MCMC ouput analysis.
Rambaut, A. 2014, Summarizing posterior trees: http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/summarizing-
posterior-trees (accessed June 2016).
Raup, D. M., 1985, Mathematical models of cladogenesis: Paleobiology, v. 11, p. 42–52.
Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S., 1973, Stochastic
models of phylogeny and the evolution of diversity: Journal of Geology, v. 81, p.
525–542.
Reich, A., Dunn, C., Akasaka, K., and Wessel, G., 2015, Phylogenomic analyses of
Echinodermata support the sister groups of Asterozoa and Echinozoa: PLoS ONE,
v. 10, e0119627.
Remane, A., 1952, Die Grundlagen des Naturlichen Systems der Vergleichenden
Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Geest und Portig, Leipzig.
Revell, L. J., 2012, phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and
other things): Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 3, p. 217-223.
379
Robinson, D.F., and Foulds, L.R., 1981, Comparison of phylogenetic trees: Mathematical
Biosciences, v. 53, p. 131–147.
Ronquist, F., Klopfstein, S., Vilhelmsen, L., Schulmeister, S., Murray, D.L. and
Rasnitsyn, A.P., 2012, A total-evidence approach to dating with fossils, applied to
the early radiation of the Hymenoptera: Systematic Biology, v. 61, p. 973–999.
Rouse, G.W., Jermiin, L.S., Wilson, N.G., Eeckhaut, I., Lanterbecq, D., Oji, T., Young,
C.M., Browning, T., Cisternas, P., Helgen, L.E., Stuckey, M., and Messing, C.G.,
2013, Fixed, free, and fixed: the fickle phylogeny of extant Crinoidea
(Echinodermata) and their Permian–Triassic origin: Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution v. 66, p. 161–181.
Rouse, G.W, Carvajal, J., Oji, T., and Messing, C.G., 2015, Further insights into extant
crinoid phylogeny from molecular sequence data: 15th International Echinoderm
Conference Abstracts, p. 67–68.
Roux, M., 1987, Evolutionary ecology and biogeography of recent stalked crinoids as a
model for the fossil record, in Jangoux, M., and Lawrence, J.M., eds., Echinoderm
studies, vol. 2: A. A. Balkma, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, p. 1–53.
Roux, M., Eleaume, M., Hemery, L.G., and Ameziane, N., 2013, When morphology
meets molecular data in crinoid phylogeny: a challenge: Cahiers de Biologie
Marine, v. 54, p. 541–548.
380
Rozhnov S. V. and G. V. Mirantsev. 2014, Structural aberrations in the cup in cladid
crinoids from the Carboniferous of the Moscow region: Paleontological Journal,
v. 48, 1243-1257.
Ruta, M., Coates, M.I., and Quicke, D.L.J., 2003, Early tetrapod relationships revisited:
Biological Reviews, v. 78, p. 351–345.
Saint-Hilaire, E. G., 1830, Principes de Philosophie Zoologique, discutés en Mars 1830,
au Sein de l’Académie Royale des Sciences. Pichon et Dider, Paris
Sallan, L.C., Kammer, T.W., Ausich, W.I., and Cook, L.A., 2011, Persistent predator-
prey dynamics revealed by mass extinction: Proceedings of the National Academy
of Science, v. 108, p. 8335–8338.
Salter, J.W., 1873, A catalogue of the collection of Cambrian and Silurian fossils
contained in the geological museum of the University of Cambridge: Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 204 p.
Schuchert, C., 1900, On the Lower Silurian (Trenton) fauna of Baffin Land: Proceedings
of the U. S. National Museum, v. 22, p. 143–178.
Schlotheim, E.F. von, 1820, Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte durch
die Beschreibung seiner Sammlung versteinerter und fossiler Überreste des Thier-
und Pflanzenreichs der Vorwelt erläutert: Gotha, Beckersche Buchhandlung, p.
437 p.
Schluter, D., 2000, The ecology of adaptive radiation. OUP Oxford.
381
Schultze, L., 1867, Monographie der Echinodermen des Eifler Kalkes: Denkschriften der
Kaiserlich Akademie der Wissenschaften Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen
Classe, Wien, v. 26, no. 2, p. 113‒230.
Sepkoski, J. J., Jr. 1981, A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil
record: Paleobiology, v. 7, p. 36–53.
Sereno, P.C., 1997, The origin and evolution of dinosaurs: Annual Review of Earth and
Planetary Sciences, v. 25, p. 235–489.
Sereno, P.C., 1999, Definitions in phylogenetic taxonomy: critique and rationale:
Systematic Biology, v. 48, p. 329–351.
Sereno, P.C., 2005, The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy: Systematic Biology, v.
54, p. 595–619.
Sereno, P.C., McAllister, S., and Brusatte, S.L., 2005, TaxonSearch: a relational database
for suprageneric taxa and phylogenetic definitions: PhyloInformatics, v. 8, p. 1–
21.
Sevastopulo, G.D., and Lane, N.G., 1988, Ontogeny and phylogeny of disparid crinoids,
in Paul, C.R.C., and Smith, A.B., eds, Echinoderm phylogeny and evolutionary
biology: Oxford, Clarendon Press, p. 245–253.
Signor P.W., and Brett, C.E., 1984, The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine
revolution: Paleobiology, v. 10, p. 229-245.
382
Shibata, T.F., Sato, A., Oji, T., and Akasaka, K., 2008, Development and growth of the
feather star Oxycomantus japonicus to sexual maturity: Zoological Science, v. 25,
p. 1075–1083.
Sibley, C.G., 1994, On the phylogeny and classification of living birds: Journal of Avian
Biology, v. 25, p. 87–92.
Shubin, N. H., and C. R., Marshall, 2000, Fossils, genes, and the origin of novelty:
Paleobiology v. 26, p. 324-340.
Simms, M.J., 1988, The phylogeny of post-Palaeozoic crinoids, in Burke, R. D., P. V.
Mladenov, P. Lambert, and R. L. Parsley, eds, Echinoderm Biology: Balkema,
Rotterdam, p. 97–102.
Simms, M. J. 1993, Reinterpretation of thecal plate homology and phylogeny in the Class
Crinoidea: Lethaia, v. 26, p. 303-312.
Simms, M.J., and Sevastopulo, G.D., 1993, The origin of articulate crinoids:
Palaeontology, v. 36, p. 91–109.
Simões, M., Breitkreuz, L., Alvarado, M., Baca, S., Cooper, J.C., Heins, L., Herzog, K.
and Lieberman, B.S., 2016, The Evolving Theory of Evolutionary Radiations.
Trends in ecology & evolution, v. 31, p.27-34.
Simpson, G.G., 1944, Tempo and Mode in Evolution: Columbia University Press, New
York.
Simpson, G.G., 1955. Major features of evolution. Columbia University Press, 434 p.
Siverts-Doreck, H. 1953. Sous-classe 4. Articulata, p. 756–765. In J. Priveteau (ed.),
Traité de paléontologie. Volume 3. Masson and Cie, Paris. 383
Slater, G.J., 2013, Phylogenetic evidence for a shift in the mode of mammalian body size
evolution at the Cretaceous-Palaeogene boundary: Methods in Ecology and
Evolution, v. 4, p. 734‒744.
Slater, G.J., 2015, Not so early bursts and the dynamic nature of morphological
diversification: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 112, p.
3595-3596.
Slater, G.J., 2015, Iterative adaptive radiations of fossil canids show no evidence for
diversity-dependent trait evolution: Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, v. 112, p. 4897‒4902.
Slater, G.J., and Harmon, L.J., 2013, Unifying fossils and phylogenies for comparative
analyses of diversification and trait evolution: Methods in Ecology and Evolution,
v. 4, p. 699‒702.
Slater, G.J., Price, S.A., Santini, F. and Alfaro, M.E., 2010, Diversity versus disparity and
the radiation of modern cetaceans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, v. 277, p. 3097-3104.
Smith, A.B., 1984, Classification of the Echinodermata: Palaeontology, v. 27, p. 431–
459.
Smith, A.B., 1985, Cambrian eleutherozoan echinoderms and the early diversification of
edrioasteroids: Palaeontology, v. 28, p. 87–89.
Smith, A.B., 1988, Patterns of diversification and extinction in early Palaeozoic
echinoderms: Palaeontology, v. 31, p. 799–828.
384
Smith, A.B., 1990, Evolutionary diversification of the echinoderms during the Early
Paleozoic: Systematics Association, Special Volume 42, p. 256–286.
Smith, A.B., 1994, Systematics and the Fossil Record: Documenting Evolutionary
Patterns: Blackwell Science, Oxford, 223 p.
Smith, A.B., 2001, Large-scale heterogeneity of the fossil record: implications for
Phanerozoic biodiversity studies: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society, London: v. 356, p. 351-368.
Smith, A.B., 2005, The pre‐radial history of echinoderms: Geological Journal, v. 40, p.
255-280.
Smith, A.B., 2008, Duterostomes in a twist: the origins of a radical new body plan:
Evolution and Development, v. 10, p. 493–503.
Smith, A.B., and Jell, P.A., 1990, Cambrian edrioasteroids from Australia and the origin
of starfishes: Queensland Museum Memoir, v. 28, p. 715–778.
Smith, A.B., and Zamora, S., 2013, Cambrian spiral-plated echinoderms from Gondwana
reveal the earliest pentaradial body plan: Proceedings of the Royal Society B, v.
280:20131197, doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1197
Smith, A.B., Lafay, B., and Christen, R., 1992, Comparative variation of morphological
and molecular evolution through geologic time: 28S ribosomal RNAversus
morphology in echinoids: Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, v.
338, p. 365‒382.
Snively, E., Russell, A.P. and Powell, G.L., 2004, Evolutionary morphology of the
coelurosaurian arctometatarsus: descriptive, morphometric and phylogenetic 385
approaches: Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, v. 142, p. 525‒553Soul,
L.C., and Friedman, M., 2015, Taxonomy and phylogeny can yield comparable
results in comparative paleontological analyses: Systematic Biology, v. 64, p.
608–620.
Spencer, M.R., and Wilberg, E.W., 2013. Efficacy or convenience? Model‐based
approaches to phylogeny estimation using morphological data: Cladistics, v. 29,
p. 663‒671.
Springer, F., 1911, On a Trenton echinoderm fauna: Canada Department Mines Memoir
no. 15-P, 70 p.
Springer, F., 1913, Crinoidea, in Zittel, K.A. von, ed., Text-book of paleontology
(translated and edited by C. R. Eastman), 2nd edit: London, Macmillan & Co.,
Ltd., v. 1, p. 173–243.
Springer, F., 1920, The Crinoidea Flexibilia: Smithsonian Institution Publication no.
2501, 486 p.
Sprinkle, J., 1982, Hybocrinus, in Sprinkle, J., ed., Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide
Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma: The University of Kansas Paleontological
Contributions, Monograph 1, p. 119–128.
Sprinkle, J., 1973, Morphology and evolution of blastozoan echinoderms: Museum of
Comparative Zoology Special Publication, Harvard University, 283 p.
Sprinkle, J., 1976, Classification and phylogeny of “pelmatozoan” echinoderms:
Systematic Zoology, v. 25, p. 83–91.
386
Sprinkle, J., 1982, Cylindrical and globular rhombiferans, in Sprinkle, J., ed., Echinoderm faunas
from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of Oklahoma: The University of
Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1, p. 231–273.
Sprinkle, J., and Guensburg, T.E., 1997, Early radiation of echinoderms. Pp. 205-224 in
J. A. Waters and C. G. Maples (eds.), Geobiology of Echinoderms,
Paleontological Society Papers 3.
Sprinkle, J., and Kolata, D. R., 1982, "Rhomb-bearing" camerate, in Sprinkle, J., ed.,
Echinoderm faunas from the Bromide Formation (Middle Ordovician) of
Oklahoma: University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Monograph 1, p.
206‒211.
Sprinkle, J., and Moore, 1978, Hybocrinida, in Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds:
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata 2: Geological Society
of America and University of Kansas Press, Kansas, p. T564–T574.
Sprinkle, J., and Wahlman, G.P., 1994, New echinoderms from the Early Ordovician of
West Texas. Journal of Paleontology, v. 68, p. 324-338.
Stadler, T., 2010, Sampling-through-time in birth-death trees: Journal of Theoretical
Biology, vol. 267, p. 396‒404.
Stadler, T. and Yang, Z., 2013, Dating phylogenies with sequentially sampled tips:
Systematic Biology, v. 62, p. 674‒688.
Stadler, T., Kouyos, R., Wyl, V. von, Yerly, S., Böni, J., Bürgisser, P., Klimkait, T., Joos,
B., Rieder, P., Xie, D., Günthard, H. F., Drummond, A. J., Bonhoeffer, S., the Swiss
387
HIV Cohort Study, 2012, Estimating the basic reproductive number from viral
sequence data: Molecular Biology and Evolution, v. 29, p. 347‒357.
Strimple, H.L., 1948, Notes on Phanocrinus from the Fayetteville Formation of
Northeastern Oklahoma: Journal of Paleontology, v. 22, p. 490-493.
Strimple, H.L., 1978, Evolutionary trends among Poteriocrinina. Pp. T298-T301 in R. C.
Moore and Teichert, C. (eds.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part T,
Echinodermata 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press,
Lawrence.
Stukalina, G.A., 1980, New species of quadrilaterial from the Ordovician of Kazakhstan,
Urals, and eastern European platform, in Stukalina, G.A., ed., New species of
ancient plants and invertebrates of the USSR, 5: Akademiia Natik SSSR,
Paleontologischeskii Institut. Moscow. p. 88-95.
Summers, M.M., Messing, C.G., and Rouse, G.W., 2014, Phylogeny of Comatulidae
(Echinodermata: Crinoidea: Comatulida): a new classification and an assessment
of morphological characters for crinoid taxonomy: Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution, v. 80, p. 319–339.
Sumrall, C.D., 1997, The role of fossils in phylogenetic reconstructions of the
Echinodermata: Paleontological Society Papers, v. 3, p. 267–288.
Sumrall, C.D., 2008, The origin of Lovéns Law in glyptocystitoid rhombiferans and its
bearing on plate homology and heterochronic evolution of the hemicosmitoid
peristomial border, in Ausich, W.I., and Webster, G.D., eds., Echinoderm
Paleobiology: Indiana University Press, Bloomington, p. 28–41. 388
Sumrall, C.D., 2010, A model for elemental homology for the peristome and ambulacra
in blastozoan echinoderms, in Harris, L.G., Bottger, S.A., Walker, C.W., and
Lesser, M.P., eds., Echinoderms: Durham, CRC Press, New York, p. 269–276.
Sumrall, C.D., 2014, Echinoderm phylogeny – the path forward: Geological Society of
America Abstracts with Programs, v. 46, p. 78.
Sumrall, C.D., and Waters, J.A., 2012, Universal Elemental Homology in
glyptocystitoids, hemicosmitoids, coronoids, and blastoids: steps toward
echinoderm phylogenetic reconstruction in derived blastozoans: Journal of
Paleontology, v, 68, p. 956–972.
Sumrall, C.D., and Wray, G.A., 2007, Ontogeny in the fossil record: diversification of
body plans and the evolution of "abberant" symmetry in Paleozoic echinoderms:
Paleobiology, v. 33, p. 149–163.
Swofford, D.L., Olsen, G.J., Waddell, P.J., and Hillis, D.M., 1996, Phylogenetic
inference, in Hillis, D.M., Moritz, C., and Mable, B.K., ed., Molecular
Systematics (second edition), Massachusetts, Sinauer, p. 407‒514.
Swofford, D., 2002, PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other
Methods): Version 4. Massachusetts, Sinauer Associates.
Telford, M.J., Low, C.J., Cameron, C.B., Ortega-Martinez, O., Aronowicz, J., Oliveri, P.,
and Copley, R.R., 2014, Phylogenetic analysis of echinoderm class relationships
supports Asterozoa: Proceedings of the Royal Society B, v. 281, 20140479.
389
Thomson, W. C. 1865, On the embryogeny of Antedon rosaceus (Lmk) (Comatula
rosacea of Lamark). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
v. 155, p. 513-545.
Ubaghs, G., 1953, Classe des crinoides. in J. Piveteau (ed.). Traité de Paléontologie. 3:
658-773.
Ubaghs, G., 1963, Rhopalocystis destombesi n. g., n. sp. Eocrinoide de l’Ordovicien
inferieur (Tremadocien superieur) du Sud marocain: Notes du service geologic du
Maroc, v. 23, p. 25–44.
Ubaghs, G., 1969, Aethocrinus moorei Ubaghs N. Gen., N. sp., le Plus ancien Crinoide
dicyclique Connu: University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 38, p. 1‒
25.
Ubaghs, G., 1978, Origin of crinoids, in Moore, R. C. and Teichert, C., eds, Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. T, Echinodermata, v. 2 (2): Geological Society of
America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, p. T275–T281.
Ulrich, E.O., 1925, The lead, zinc, and fluorspar deposits of Western Kentucky; Chapter
2, Stratigraphic geology: U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 36, p. 22‒
71. van Valen, L. M., 1982, Homology and causes. Journal of Morphology, v. 173, p. 305-
312.
Vermeij, G.J., 1987, Evolution and escalation: an ecological history of life. Princeton
University Press.
390 von Baer, K. E., 1828, Uber Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere: Beobachtung und
Reflektion, Bornträger.
Vrba, E.S., 1987, Ecology in relation to speciation rates: some case histories of Miocene-
Recent mammal clades. Evolutionary Ecology, v. 1, p.283-300.
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F., 1880–1886, Revision of the Palaeocrinoidea.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Pt. I. The
families Ichthyocrinidae and Cyathocrinidae (1880), p. 226‒378 (separate repaged
p. 1–153). Pt. II. Family Sphaeroidocrinidae, with the sub-families Platycrinidae,
Rhodocrinidae, and Actinocrinidae (1881), p. 177‒411 (separate repaged, p. 1‒
237). Pt. III, Sec. 1. Discussion of the classification and relations of the brachiate
crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions (1885), p. 225‒364 (separate
repaged, 1‒138). Pt. III, Sec. 2. Discussion of the classification and relations of
the brachiate crinoids, and conclusion of the generic descriptions (1886), p. 64‒
226 (separate repaged to continue with section 1, 139‒302).
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F., 1891, The perisomic plates of the crinoids: Proceedings
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v. 41, p. 345–39.
Wachsmuth, C., and Springer, F., 1897, The North American Crinoidea Camerata:
Harvard College Museum of Comparative Zoology Memoir, v. 20 and 21, 897 p.
Wagner, G.P., 2006. Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity:
American Zoologist, v. 36, p. 36-43.
Wagner, G.P., 2007. The developmental genetics of homology: Nature Reviews Genetics,
v. 8, p. 473-479. 391
Wagner, P.J., 1995,Testing evolutionary constraint hypotheses with Early Paleozoic
gastropods: Paleobiology, v. 21, p. 248-272.
Wagner, P.J., 1997, Patterns of morphologic diversification among the Rostroconchia:
Paleobiology, v. 23, p. 115-150.
Wagner, PJ. 1998, A likelihood approach for evaluating estimates of phylogenetic
relationships among fossil taxa: Paleobiology, v. 24, p. 430‒49.
Wagner, P.J., 1999, The utility of fossil data in phylogenetic analyses: a likelihood
example using Ordovician-Silurian species of the Lophospiridae (Gastropoda:
Murchisoniina): American Malacological Bulletin, v. 15, p. 1‒32.
Wagner, P.J., 2000, Phylogenetic analyses and the fossil record: tests and inferences,
hypotheses, and models: Paleobiology, v. 26, p. 341‒371.
Wagner, P.J., 2000, The quality of the fossil record and the accuracy of phylogenetic
inferences about sampling and diversity: Systematic Biology, v. 49, p. 65‒86.
Wagner, P.J., 2000, Exhaustion of morphologic character states among fossil taxa:
Evolution, v. 54, 365‒386.
Wagner, P.J., 2010. Paleontological perspectives on morphological evolution. in
Evolution since Darwin: the first, 150 years, pp.451-478.
Wagner, P. J., 2012, Modelling rate distributions using character compatibility:
implications for morphological evolution among fossil invertebrates: Biology Letters,
v. 8, p. 143—146.
392
Wagner, P.J., 2012, Modelling rate distributions using character compatibility:
implications for morphological evolution among fossil invertebrates: Biology
Letters, v. 8, p. 143‒146.
Wagner, P.J. and Marcot, J.D., 2010, Probabilistic phylogenetic inference in the fossil
record: current and future applications, in Alroy, J. and Hunt, G., eds.,
Quantitative Methods in Paleobiology. The Paleontological Society Papers, v. 16,
p. 189‒211
Wagner, P.J. and Marcot, J.D., 2013, Modelling distributions of fossil sampling rates
over time, space and taxa: assessment and implications for macroevolutionary
studies: Methods in Ecology and Evolution, v. 4, p.703‒713.
Walcott, C.D., 1884. Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Trenton Group of
New York: New York State Museum of Natural History, Annual Report, v. 35, p.
207‒214.
Walker, L. J., Wilkinson, B.H., and Ivany, L.C., 2002, Continental drift and Phanerozoic
carbonate accumulation in shallow-shelf and deep-marine settings: The Journal of
Geology, v. 110, p.75-87.
Wanner, J., 1916, Dei Permischen echinodermen von Timor, I. Teil. Paläeontology von
Timor, v. 11, p. 1-329.
Webster, G.D., 2003, Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, coronates, and
hemistreptocrinoids: Geological Society of America Special Paper 363.
Webster, G.D., 2013, Bibliography and index of Paleozoic crinoids, coronates, and
hemistreptocrinoids, 1758–2012: [http://crinoids.azurewebsites.net/]
393
Webster, G.D., and Jell, P.A., 1999, New Permian crinoids from Australia: Memoirs of
the Queensland Museum, v. 33, p. 349–359.
Webster, G.D., and Lane, N.G.,1967, Additional Permian crinoids from southern Nevada:
University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, v. 27, p. 1-32.
Webster, G.D., and Lane, N.G., 2007, New Permian crinoids from the Battleship Wash patch
reef in southern Nevada: Journal of Paleontology, v. 81, p. 951–965.
Webster, G.D. and Maples, C.G., 2006, Cladid crinoid (Echinodermata) anal conditions:
a terminology problem and proposed solution: Palaeontology, v. 49, p. 187–212.
Webster, G.D. and Maples, C.G., 2008, Cladid crinoid radial facets, brachials, and arm
appendages: a terminology solution for studies of lineage, classification, and
paleoenvironment, in Ausich, W.I., and Webster, G.D., eds., Echinoderm
Paleobiology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, p.197–226.
Webster, G.D., Maples, C.G., Mawson, R., and Dastanpour, M., 2003, A cladid-dominated Early
Mississippian crinoid and conodont fauna from Kerman Province, Iran and revision of
the glossocrinids and rhenocrinids: Journal of Paleontology, Memoir 60, v. 77, suppl. to
no. 3, 35 p.
Weller, S. and Davidson, A.D., 1896. Petalocrinus mirabilis (n. sp.) and a new American
fauna: Journal of Geology, v. 4, p. 166‒173.
Wetherby, A.G., 1880, Remarks on the Trenton Limestone of Kentucky, with
descriptions of new fossils from that formation and the Kaskaskia (Chester)
394
Group, Sub-carboniferous: Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, v.
3, p. 144–160.
Wheeler, W.C., 2012, Systematics: a course of lectures: Chichester, John Wiley and
Sons. 426 p.
Wheeler, W.C., and Pickett, K.M., 2007, Topology-Bayes versus Clade-Bayes in
phylogenetic analysis: Molecular Biology and Evolution, v. 25, p. 447‒453.
White, C. A., 1881, Fossils of the Indiana rocks: Indiana Department of Statistics and
Geology, Annual Report, v. 2, p. 471–522.
Wiley, E.O.,1975, Karl R. Popper, systematics and classification: a reply to Walter Bock
and other evolutionary taxonomists: Systematic Zoology, v. 24, p. 33-243.
Wiley, E.O., and Lieberman, B.S., 2011, Phylogenetics: theory and practice of
phylogenetic systematics: John Wiley & Sons, 406 p.
Wright, A.M., and Hillis, D.M., 2014, Bayesian analysis using a simple likelihood model
outperforms parsimony for estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological
data: PloS One, v. 9, e109210.
Wright, D.F., 2015, Fossils, homology, and “Phylogenetic Paleo-ontogeny”: a
reassessment of primary posterior plate homologies among fossil and living
crinoids with insight from developmental biology: Paleobiology, v. 41, p. 570–
591.
Wright, D.F., 2015, Testing the taxonomic structure of Paleozoic pan-cladid crinoids: a
statistical approach using the fossilized birth-death process and Bayesian
395
phylogenetic inference: Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs,
v. 7, p. 854.
Wright, D.F., in press, Bayesian estimation of fossil phylogenies and the evolution of
early to middle Paleozoic crinoids (Echinodermata): Journal of Paleontology.
Wright, D.F., and Ausich, 2015, W.I., From the stem to the crown: phylogeny and
diversification of pan-cladid crinoids, in Zamora, S. and Rábano, I., eds., Progress
in Echinoderm Paleobiology: Cuadernos del museo Geominero, 19, Instituto
Geológico y Minero de España, p. 199–202.
Wright, D. F. and Stigall, A. L., 2013, Phylogenetic revision of the Late Ordovician
orthid brachiopod genera Plaesiomys and Hebertella from Laurentia: Journal of
Paleontology, v. 87, p. 1107‒1128.
Wright, D.F., Ausich, W.I., Cole, S.R., Rhenberg, E.C., and Peter, M.E., in press,
Phylogenetic taxonomy and classification of the Crinoidea (Echinodermata):
Journal of Paleontology.
Wright, J., 1920, On Carboniferous crinoids from Fife; with notes on some localities, and
provisional lists of specie:. Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow, v.
16, p. 363-392.
Wright, J., 1926, Notes on the anal plates of Epachycrinus calyx and Zeacrinus konincki.:
Geological Magazine, v. 64, p. 352-373.
Wright, J., 1927, Some variations in Ulocrinus and Hydreionocrinus. Geological
Magazine 71:241-268.
396
Xie, W., Lewis, P.O., Fan, Y., Kuo, L., and Chen, M.–H., 2010, Improving marginal
likelihood estimation for Bayesian phylogenetic model selection: Systematic Biology,
v. 60, p. 150‒160.
Yang, Z., 2014, Molecular Evolution: a Statistical Approach: Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 492 p.
Zamora, S., 2013, Morphology and phylogenetic interpretation of a new Cambrian
edrioasteroid (Echinodermata) from Spain: Palaeontology, v. 56, p. 421–431.
Zamora, S., and Rahman, I.A., 2014, Deciphering the early evolution of echinoderms
with Cambrian fossils: Palaeontology, v. 57, p. 1105–1119.
Zamora, S., and Smith, A.B., 2011, Cambrian stalked echinoderms show unexpected
plasticity of arm construction: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B:
Biological Sciences, rspb20110777.
Zamora, S., I. A. Rahman, and A. B. Smith. 2012, Plated Cambrian bilaterians reveal the
earliest stages of echinoderm evolution: PLoS One e38296.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038296
Zamora, S., Sumrall, C.D., and Vizcaino, D., 2013, Morphology and ontogeny of the
Cambrian edrioasteroid echinoderm Cambraster cannati from western
Gondwana: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, v. 58, p. 545-559.
Zamora, S., Sumrall, C.D., Zhu, X., Lefebvre, B., 2016, A new stemmed echinoderm
from the Furongian of China and the origin of Glyptocystitida (Blastozoa,
Echinodermata): Geological Magazine, doi:10.1017/S001675681600011X.
397
Zhang, C., Stadler, T., Klopfstein, S., Heath, T.A. and Ronquist, F., 2016, Total-Evidence
Dating under the Fossilized Birth–Death Process: Systematic Biology, v. 65, p.,
228‒249.
Zittel, K.A., von, 1895, Grundzüge der Palaeontologie (Palaeozoologie), 1st edition: R.
Oldenbourg, München, 971 p.
398
Appendix A: Character list for phylogenetic analysis in Chapter 5.
1. Calyx shape ratio (height /width): very high, >1.5 (0); high, 1.5-1.0 (1); intermediate
1.0-0.5 (3); low, 0.5-0.25 (3); very low, < 0.25 (4).
2. Calyx profile: straight sided, cone shape (0); rounded base with widest point at the
summit of the calyx (1); rounded base with widest point below the summit of the
cup (2).
3. Calyx shape in transverse section: round (0); subpentagonal (1).
4. Calyx radial plate thickness: thin, <25% height or width of plate (0); thick, >25%
height or width of plate (1).
5. Calyx plate sculpturing: absent (0); present (1).
6. Type of calyx suturing: non-stellate ridges (0); stellate ridges (1); spinose (2); nodose
(3); granulose (4).
7. Outline shape of calyx base: upright (0); broad and flat (1); steeply concave (2).
8. Basal invagination of calyx: absent (0); present (1).
9. Attitude of the infrabasal circlet: all plates visible in side view (0); along base of calyx,
neither entirely in a basal concavity nor visible in side view (1); not visible in side
view (2).
10. Number of infrabasal plates: five (0); three (1); one (2).
399
11. Infrabasal plate dimensions: width > height (0); width ~ height (1); width < height
(2).
12. Cross sectional shape of the infrabasal plates: straight upwards/flared (0);
curved/downflared (1).
13. Attitude of the basal circlet: all plates visible in side view (0); along base of calyx,
neither entirely in a basal concavity nor visible in side view (1); not visible in side
view (2).
14. Basal plate dimensions: width > height (0); width ~ height (1); width < height (2).
15. Relative sizes of plates in the basal circlet: equal/subequal (0); unequal (1).
16. Cross sectional shape of the basal plates: straight (0); curved (1); bulbous/inflated (2).
17. Interruption in the radial circlet CD interray: absent (0); present (1).
18. Radial plate dimensions: width > height (0); width ~ height (1); width < height (2).
19. Attitude of the radial circlet: (0); along base of calyx, neither entirely in a basal
concavity nor visible in side view (1).
20. Cross sectional shape of the radial plates: straight (0); curved (1); bulbous/inflated
(2).
21. Largest plate in the calyx: below the radials circlet (0); in the radial circlet (1).
22. Compound/ bi-radial: absent (0); present (1).
23. C-ray radial plate: similar size to other radial plates (0); smaller than other radial
plates (1).
24. Radial facet width (sensu Webster and Maples 2008): angustary (0); peneplenary (1);
plenary (2).
400
25. Contact type when radial facets extend across the radial plate (Webster 2007): plenary
(0); explenary (1); inplenary (2).
26. Radial facet dimensions: width > height (0); width ~ height (1); width < height (2).
27. Adaxial notch on radial facets: absent (0); present (1).
28. Orientation of the radial facets: planate (0); declivate (1); sursumate (2).
29. Radial facet type (sensu Webster and Maples, 2008): unifascial (0); bifascial (1);
multifascial ‘muscular’ (2); trifascial (3).
30. Transverse ridge on radial facet: absent (0); present (1).
31. Thick entoneural canal on facet: absent (0); present (1).
32. Ligament pit on facet: absent (0); present (1).
33. Crenulated surface proximal to aboral ligamentary fossae: absent (0); present (1).
34. Number of posterior plates partially or completely within the cup: three (0); ≤ three
(1).
35. Radianal plate: absent (0); present (1).
36. Visibility of the radianal plate: visible on the exterior (0); cryptic (1).
37. Shape of the radianal plate (upper plate when subdivided): pentagonal (0); tetragonal
(1); hexagonal (2).
38. Proximal position of the radianal plate: full width beneath the C-ray radial (0); to the
left and below the C radial plate (1); within the radial circlet above the CD basal
plate (2).
39. Circlet in most proximal position with the radianal plate: basals (0); infrabasals (1);
radials (2).
401
40. Anal X: absent (0); present (1).
41. Shape of the anal X plate: pentagonal (0); tetragonal (1); hexagonal (2);
42. Position of the anal X plate within the calyx: entirely in the cup (0); partially in the
cup (1); entirely above the cup (2).
43. Position of the anal X plate relative to the plates below: above and to the left of the
radianal and in contact with the CD basal (0); above and to the left of the radianal
and in contact with the D radial but not the CD basal (1); directly above the
radianal and not in proximal contact with the CD basal or the D radial (2).
44. Plates right-lateral to the anal X: in contact with the C-ray radial (0); in contact with
other anal plates (1).
45. Right tube plate: absent (0); present (1).
46. Shape of the right tube plate: pentagonal (0); tetragonal (1); hexagonal (2).
47. Position of the right tube plate within the calyx: entirely in the cup (0); partially in the
cup (1); entirely above the cup (2).
48. Position of the right tube plate relative to the plates below: above and to the right of
the anal X and in contact with the radianal (0); directly above the anal X and not
in contact with the radianal (1); above and to the right of the anal X and not in
contact with the radianal (2).
49. Plates left-lateral to the right tube plate: anal X and additional anal plates (0); anal X
only (1); D-ray radial plate (2).
50. Anal sac: absent (0); present (1).
402
51. Height of the anal opening above the cup: ≤ half the height of the arms (0); > half the
height of the arms and ≤ maximum arm height (1); > than maximum arm height
(2).
52. Anus position relative to the crown: near the summit (0); below the summit (1).
53. Anal sac plating: vertical columns, regular plating (0); irregular plating (1).
54. Medial column supporting the anal sac: absent (0); present (1).
55. Anal sac plate sculpturing: absent (0); present (1).
56. Anal sac sculpturing pattern: radiating ridges (0); vertical grooves and ridges (1).
57. Anal sac plate cross section: flat (0); convex (1); spinose (2); plicated (3).
58. Shape of the anal sac: cylindrical (0); tapers distally (1).
59. Pore structures on the anal sac: absent (0); present (1).
60. Anal sac spines: absent (0); present (1).
60. Number of arm openings originating from the calyx: five (0); three (1); one (2).
61. Arrarngement of spines along the anal sac summit: single spine (0); multiple spines
(1); roof-forming (e.g., “umbrella” of spines).
62. Arm openings into the calyx: five (0); three (1); one (2).
63. Proximal free arm projection: outward and upward (0); directed vertically (1).
64. Fixed lower brachial plates: absent (0); present (1).
65. Primaxil branching on B-E rays: absent (0); present (1).
66. Branching in the A ray: same as B-E rays (0); different from B-E rays (1).
67. Highest position of an axillary on B-E ray primibrachials: IPr1 (0); IPr2 (1); ≥ IPr3
(2).
403
68. Bifurcation pattern on B-E ray primaxils: atomous (0); similar spacing (1); irregular
spacing (2); plates fuse to form a mesh/fan shape (3).
69. Spacing between axillaries at and above the second brachitaxes in B-E rays: regular
(0); irregular (1).
70. Secundaxil branching in the B-E rays: absent (0); present (1).
71. Branching above the secundaxil in B-E rays: absent (0); present (1).
72. Largest number of axillaries per ray: zero (0); one (1); two (2); ≥ 3 (3).
73. Outline pattern of bifurcation (Ubaghs, 1978, fig. 115): isotomous (0); heterotomous
(# 2 and 3 in Ubaghs, 1978, fig 115) (1); endotomous (2); exotomous (3).
74. Pinnulation: absent (0); present (1).
75. Branching complexity of minor arm appendages on brachials distributed along the
main ray axis: absent (0); ramulate (i.e., terminal appendages are separated by at
least one brachial, branched or unbranched) (1); pinnulate (i.e., unbranched
terminal appendages distributed along successive brachial plates) (2).
76. Mature (i.e., distal) brachial type: uniserial (0); biserial (1).
77. Transition from proximal uniserial to distal biseral brachials: absent (0); present (1).
78. Mature shape of uniserial brachials (sensu Webster 2007): rectilinear (0); weakly
cuneate (1); moderately cuneate (2); strongly cuneate (3).
79. Distal biserial brachial shape (sensu Webster 2007): wedge (0); round (1); flat chisel
(2).
80. Size of the primibrachials: smaller than radials (0); subequal to radials (1).
404
81. Number of axillaries in the A ray: same as other rays (0); first branching is higher
than other rays (1).
82. Shape of the first primibrachial: tetragonal (0); pentagonal (1); triangular (2).
83. Dimensions of the first primibrachial: width > height (0); width ~ height (1); width <
height (2).
84. Primaxil ornamentation: absent (0); present (1).
85. Maximum number of secundibrachials: zero (0); one (1); two (2); ≥ 3 (3).
86. Secundaxil spines: absent (0); present (1).
87. Syzygial sutures on brachials: absent (0); present (1).
88. Column: absent (0); present (1).
89. Proximal shape of the stalk: circular (0); pentagonal (1).
90. Lumen shape in proxistele columnals: circular (0); pentalobate (1); pentastellate (2).
91. Branching appendages on proximal stem: absent (0); present (1).
92. Stem appendages: absent (0); cirri (1); highly cirriferous (2).
405