Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T21:07:59.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary tempo in Jurassic and Cretaceous ammonites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Peter D. Ward and
Philip W. Signor III
Peter D. Ward
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California 95616
Philip W. Signor III
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California 95616
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Stage-level range data for 983 Jurassic and Cretaceous ammonite genera, distributed within 83 families, were analyzed by assigning absolute ages to stages or substages. We found ammonite genera to have a mean generic range of 7.3 Myr/ammonite genus. Using a similar methodology, mean generic range per family was also computed. The distribution of long-ranging genera (arbitrarily chosen as those ammonite genera ranging for 12 Myr or more) among families was found to be nonrandom. Instead, long-ranging genera were found to be concentrated in a few families, resulting in significant heterogeneity in the distribution of generic longevities within families (taxotely sensu Raup and Marshall 1980). Although some of the long-ranging genera were found to be morphologically simpler than shorter-ranging genera, others were equally or even more complex, indicating that longevity among ammonite genera is not merely a taxonomic artifact, dependent on degree of differentiable conch morphology. Those Cretaceous families composed of a large number of long-ranging genera were also among the leaders in mean species longevity per family, based on species-level range data for Cretaceous ammonites of the Great Valley Sequence of California. Many of the long-ranging genera and species possess a similar morphologic attribute: siphuncular tubes (connecting rings) of small diameter but high wall thickness.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Spring 1983, pp. 183 - 198
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

Alexander, R. R. 1979. Differentiation of generic extinction rates among Upper Ordovician-Devonian articulate brachiopods. Paleobiology. 5:133–143.Google Scholar
Arkell, W. J., Furnish, W. M., Kummel, B., Miller, A. K., Moore, R. C., Schindewolf, O. H., Sylvester-Bradley, P. C., and Wright, C. W. 1957. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part L. Mollusca 4. Geol. Soc. America and Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence. 490 pp.Google Scholar
Birkelund, T. 1979. The last Maastrichtian ammonites. Pp. 51–60. In: Christensen, W. K. and Birkelund, T., eds. Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary Events. II. Proceedings. Univ. Copenhagen; Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, J. A. Jr. 1978. Permeability of the siphuncular tube of Nautilus: its ecologic and paleoecologic implications. N. Jb. Geol. Paläont., Mh. 3:129–142.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, J. A. Jr. and Moore, W. A. Jr. 1982. Rupture strength and flow rates of Nautilus siphuncular tubes. Paleobiology. 8:408–425.Google Scholar
Crick, R. E. 1981. Diversity and evolutionary rates of Cambro-Ordovician nautiloids. Paleobiology. 7:216–229.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species. John Murray, London. 490 pp.Google Scholar
Douglas, R. G. 1969. Upper Cretaceous planktonic foraminifera in northern California. I. Systematics. Micropaleontology. 15:151–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1980. Generic longevity in Lower Ordovician tri-lobites: relation to environment. Paleobiology. 6:24–31.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., Raup, D. M., Sepkoski, J. J. Jr., Schopf, T. J. M., and Simberloff, D. S. 1977. The shape of evolution: A comparison of real and random clades. Paleobiology. 3:23–40.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. M. 1967. Some Cretaceous-Tertiary marine faunal changes. Pp. 91–104. In: Harland, W. B. and others, eds. The Fossil Record. Geol. Soc. London; London.Google Scholar
Howarth, M. K. 1958. A monograph of the Liassic family Amaltheidae in Britain. Palaeontogr. Soc. (Monogr.)., 53 pp. 10 pl.Google Scholar
Imlay, R. W. 1960. Ammonites of Early Cretaceous age (Hauterivian and Valanginian) from the Pacific Coast states. U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 34F:167–225. Pls. 24–43.Google Scholar
Imlay, R. W. and Jones, D. L. 1970. Ammonites from the Buchia zones in northwestern California and southwestern Oregon. U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 647B. 59 pp.Google Scholar
Kauffman, E. G. 1977. Evolutionary rates and patterns among Cretaceous Bivalvia. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 284B:277–304.Google Scholar
Kennedy, W. J. 1977. Ammonite evolution. Pp. 251–304. In: Hallam, A., ed. Patterns of Evolution. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.; Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Kennedy, W. J. and Cobban, W. A. 1976. Aspects of ammonite biology, biostratigraphy and biogeography. Spec. Pap. Paleontol. 17:1–94.Google Scholar
Levinton, J. S. 1974. Trophic group and evolution in bivalve molluscs. Palaeontology. 17:579–585.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, T. 1960. Upper Cretaceous ammonites of California. III. Kyushu Univ. Fac. Sci. Mem., Ser. D Geol. 2. 204 pp.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. A. 1956. Lower Cretaceous stratigraphic units of Northern California. A.A.P.G. Bull. 40:2098–2119.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. A. 1975. Paleontology and stratigraphy of the Lower Chickabally Mudstone (Barremian-Aptian) in the Onu Quadrangle, Northern California. Univ. Cal. Publ. Geol. Sci. 113. 52 pp.Google Scholar
Obradovich, J. D. and Cobban, W. A. 1975. A time scale for the Late Cretaceous of the Western Interior of North America. Pp. 31–54. In: Caldwell, W. E. G., ed. The Cretaceous System in the Western Interior of North America. Geol. Soc. Can. Spec. Publ. 13.Google Scholar
Popenoe, W. T., Imlay, R. W., and Murphy, M. A. 1960. Correlation of the Cretaceous formations of the Pacific coast (United States and northwestern Mexico). Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 71:1491–1540.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: General problems. J. Paleontol. 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. and Marshall, L. G. 1980. Variation between groups in evolutionary rates: a statistical test of significance. Paleobiology. 6:9–23.Google Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M., Raup, D. M., Gould, S. J., and Simberloff, D. S. 1975. Genomic versus morphologic rates of evolution: influence of morphologic complexity. Paleobiology 1:63–70.Google Scholar
Scott, G. 1940. Paleoecological factors controlling distribution and mode of life of Cretaceous ammonoids in the Texas area. Bull. A.A.P.G. 24:1164–1203.Google Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1975. Stratigraphic biases in the analysis of taxonomic survivorship. Paleobiology. 1:343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1953. The Major Features of Evolution. 434 pp. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1979. Macroevolution. 332 pp. Freeman; San Francisco.Google Scholar
Tanabe, K. 1979. Paleoecological analysis of ammonoid assemblages in the Turonian Scaphites facies of Hokkaido, Japan. Palaeontology. 22:609–630.Google Scholar
Van Eysinga, F. W. B. 1975. Geological Time Table. 3rd ed.Elsevier; Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Van Hinte, J. E. 1976a. A Jurassic time scale. A.A.P.G. Bull. 60:489–497.Google Scholar
Van Hinte, J. E. 1976b. A Cretaceous time scale. A.A.P.G. Bull. 60:498–516.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1978. Revisions to the stratigraphy and biochronology of the Upper Cretaceous Nanaimo Group, British Columbia and Washington State. Can. J. Earth Sci. 15:405–423.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1979. Functional morphology of Cretaceous helically-coiled ammonite shells. Paleobiology. 5:415–422.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1981. Shell sculpture as a defensive adaptation in ammonoids. Paleobiology. 7:96–100.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. 1982. The relationship of siphuncle size to emptying rates in chambered cephalopods: implications for cephalopod paleobiology. Paleobiology. 8(4):426–433.Google Scholar
Ward, P. and Greenwald, L. 1981. Chamber refilling in Nautilus. J. Mar. Biol. Assn. U.K. 62:469–475.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. and Haggart, J. W. 1981. The Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) ammonite and inoceramid bivalve succession at Sand Creek, Colusa County, California, and its implications for establishment of an Upper Cretaceous Great Valley Sequence ammonite zonation. Newsl. Stratigr. 10:140–147.Google Scholar
Ward, P. D. and Westermann, G. E. G. 1977. First occurrence, systematics, and functional morphology of Nipponites (Cretaceous Lytoceratina) from the Americas. J. Paleontol. 51:366–372.Google Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1971. Form, structure and function of shell and siphuncle in coiled Mesozoic ammonoids. Life Sci. Cont., R. Ont. Mus., No. 78. 39 pp.Google Scholar
Westermann, G. E. G. 1982. The connecting rings of Nautilus and Mesozoic ammonoids: implications for ammonoid bathymetry. Lethaia. 15:373–384.Google Scholar
Wiedmann, J. 1969. The heteromorphs and ammonite extinction. Biol. Rev. 44:563–602.Google Scholar
Wiedmann, J. 1973. Evolution or revolution of ammonoids at Cretaceous system boundaries. Biol. Rev. 48:159–194.Google Scholar
Ziegler, B. 1959. Evolution in Upper Jurassic ammonites. Evolution. 13:229–235.Google Scholar
Ziegler, B. 1967. Ammoniten-Ökologie am Beispiel des Oberjura. Geol. Rdsch. 56:439–464.Google Scholar