Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T06:00:00.358Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of the Permo-Triassic bottleneck on Triassic ammonoid morphological evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Alistair J. McGowan
Alistair J. McGowan*
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ammonoid taxonomic history is a well-documented series of diversity “booms and busts”, but the effect of this taxonomic pattern on morphological evolution has not received as much attention. We know particularly little about the effects of the Permo-Triassic mass extinction on the subsequent morphological evolution of the ammonoids.

Morphological data from 322 Triassic ammonoid genera (322 species) were combined with previously published data for Late Paleozoic ammonoids. This data set of 601 specimens was subjected to PCA to assess (1) the effects of the Permo-Triassic taxonomic bottleneck on ammonoid morphological evolution, by comparing the strength and sign of correlations in the Paleozoic and in the Triassic, and (2) whether the Triassic ammonoids immediately shifted to Jurassic morphologies, retained Paleozoic morphologies, or evolved in a more “mosaic” fashion.

The Triassic ammonoids recapitulate the late Paleozoic W-D distribution, but in S-D space their distribution closely foreshadows that of the Lower Jurassic ammonites. Given these findings it is clear that at even the level of shell geometry the Triassic ammonoids evolved in a mosaic fashion

The Triassic ammonoids reoccupy, and extend, the volume of morphospace occupied by the Paleozoic ammonoids. Overall, Triassic correlations between pairs of characters are weaker, but not significantly so.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , Summer 2004, pp. 369 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Arkell, W. J., Furnish, W. M., Kummel, B., Miller, A. K., Moore, R. C., Schindewolf, C. H., Sylvester-Bradley, P. C., and Wright, C. W. 1957. Mollusca 4, Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea. Part L. ofMoore, R. C., ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America, New York, and University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Becker, R. T., and Kullman, J. 1996. Paleozoic ammonoids in space and time. Pp. 711–753in Landman, N. H., Kazushige, T., and Davis, R. A., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology. Plenum, NY. Benton, M. J.1987. Progress and competition in macroevolution. Biological Reviews 62:305–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, R. T., and Kullman, J. 1996. On the nonprevalence of competitive replacement in the evolution of tetrapods. Pp. 185–210in Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J. H., eds. Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, J. A. Jr. 1981. Hydromechanical design of fossil cephalopods. Pp. 289–336in House, Senior1981.Google Scholar
Cowen, R., Gertman, R., and Wiggett, G. 1973. Camouflage patterns in Nautilus, and their implications for cephalopod paleobiology. Lethaia 6:201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. C. 2002. Statistics and data analysis in geology, 3d ed.Wiley, NY.Google Scholar
Dietl, G. 1978. Die heteromorphen Ammoniten des Dogger. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde B33.Google Scholar
Dommergues, J.-L. 1990. Pp. 162–187in McNamara, K. J., ed. Evolutionary trends. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Dommergues, J.-L., Laurin, B., and Meister, C. 1996. Evolution of ammonoid morphospace during the Early Jurassic radiation. Paleobiology 22:219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dommergues, J.-L., Montuire, S., and Neige, P. 2002. Size patterns through time: the case of the Early Jurassic ammonite radiation. Paleobiology 28:423–434.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1992. Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 18:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1997. The evolution of morphological diversity. Annual Reviews in Ecology and Systematics 28:129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history. W. W. Norton, NY.Google Scholar
House, M. R., and Senior, J. R. 1981. The Ammonoidea. Systematics Association Special Vol. 18. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1989. The biology of mass extinction: a palaeontological view. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 325:357–368.Google ScholarPubMed
Jablonski, D. 2001. Lessons from the past: evolutionary impacts of mass extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 98:5393–5398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonski, D. 2002. Survival without recovery after mass extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99:8139–8144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, D. K. 1992. Shape, drag, and power in ammonoid swimming. Paleobiology 18:203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, H. F. 1960. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20:141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korn, D. 2000. Morphospace occupation of ammonoids over the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 74:247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonova, T. B. 2002. Permian ammonoids: classification and phylogeny. Paleontological Journal 36(Suppl. 1).Google Scholar
McGhee, G. 1999. Theoretical morphology: the concept and its applications. Columbia University Press, NY.Google Scholar
McGowan, A. J. 2002. The macroevolution of Triassic ammonoids. Palaeontological Association Newsletter 49:48–51.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, S. V. 1999. Morphological diversity of ammonoids from the lower Namurian of Central Asia. Pp. 295–313in Oloriz, F. and Rodriguez-Tovar, J., eds. Advancing research in living and fossil cephalopods. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, K. N. 1996. Mesozoic ammonoids in time and space. Pp. 755–794in Landman, N. H., Tanabe, K., and Davis, R. A., eds. Ammonoid paleobiology. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, A. R. 1979. Fish predation and the evolution of gastropod shell sculpture: experimental and geographic evidence. Evolution 33:697–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1967. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: coiling in ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 41:43–65.Google Scholar
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 81:525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Shapiro, E. A. 1986. Calculation and simulation of ammonoid hydrostatics. Paleobiology 12:64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Swan, A. R. H. 1984. Morphology and morphologic diversity of mid-Carboniferous (Namurian) ammonoids in time and space. Paleobiology 10:195–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Work, D. M. 1996. Shell morphology and suture complexity in Upper Carboniferous ammonoids. Paleobiology 22:189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Work, D. M. 1997. Evolution of shell morphology and suture complexity in Paleozoic prolecanitids, the rootstock of Mesozoic ammonoids. Paleobiology 23:301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Nikoleva, S. V. 2004. The evolutionary history of shell geometry in Paleozoic ammonoid. Paleobiology 30:19–43.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinosa, C., Furnish, W. M., and Glenister, B. F. 1975. The Xenodiscidae, Permian ceratoid ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 49:239–283.Google Scholar
Swan, A. R. H., and Saunders, W. B. 1987. Function and shape in the late Paleozoic (mid-Carboniferous) ammonoids. Paleobiology 13:297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tozer, E. T. 1981a. Triassic Ammonoidea: classification, evolution and relationship with Permian and Jurassic forms. Pp. 66–100in House, Senior and 1981.Google Scholar
Tozer, E. T. 1981b. Triassic ammonoids: geographic and stratigraphic distribution. Pp. 397–431in House, Senior and 1981.Google Scholar
Tozer, E. T. 1994. Canadian Triassic ammonoid faunas. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1976. Interoceanic differences in vulnerability of shelled prey to crab predation. Nature 260:135–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tozer, E. T. 1987. Evolution and escalation: an ecological history of life. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1980. Comparative shell shape distributions in Jurassic-Cretaceous ammonites and Jurassic-Tertiary nautilids. Paleobiology 6:32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1981. Shell sculpture as a defensive adaptation in ammonoids. Paleobiology 7:96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedmann, J. 1973. Evolution or (r)evolution of ammonoids at Mesozoic system boundaries. Biological Reviews 48:159–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedmann, J., and Kullman, J. 1981. Ammonoid sutures in ontogeny and phylogeny. Pp. 215–255in House, Senior and 1981.Google Scholar