Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T20:51:22.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paleoecology of sublittoral Miocene echinoids from Sardinia: A case study for substrate controls of faunal distributions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2019

Andrea Mancosu and
James H. Nebelsick
Andrea Mancosu
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche e Geologiche, Università degli studi di Cagliari, Via Trentino 51, 09127 Cagliari, Italy
James H. Nebelsick
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Hölderlinstrasse 12, D-72074 Tübingen, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A rich echinoid fauna within the middle Miocene carbonate sedimentary succession cropping out along the coast between Santa Caterina di Pittinuri and S'Archittu (central-western Sardinia) allows the comparison of faunal gradients and preservation potentials from both hard and soft substrata. Three echinoid assemblages are recognized. Faunal composition, as well as taphonomic and sedimentological features and functional morphological interpretation of the echinoid test indicate an outer sublittoral setting. Assemblage 1 represents a highly structured environment within the photic zone, with mobile substrata occupied by infaunal irregular echinoids, mainly spatangoids, and localized hard substrata, provided by rhodolith beds, with epibenthic regular echinoids represented by the co-occurrence of the diadematid Diadema Gray, 1825 and the toxopneustids Tripneustes L. Agassiz, 1841 and Schizechinus Pomel, 1869. Assemblage 2 shows a higher diversity of irregular echinoids, dominated by the clypeasteroids Echinocyamus van Phelsum, 1774 and Clypeaster Lamarck, 1801 and different spatangoids, with the minute trigonocidarid Genocidaris A. Agassiz, 1869 among regular echinoids. This assemblage points to a soft-bottom environment with moderate water-energy conditions, periodically affected by storms. A low-diversity echinoid fauna in Assemblage 3, dominated by the spatangoids Brissopsis L. Agassiz, 1840 and Ova Gray, 1825, documents a deeper, soft-bottom environment, possibly below storm-wave base. These results indicate that the diversity of echinoid faunas originating in sublittoral environments is related to: (1) the presence of both soft and hard substrata, (2) differential preservation potentials of the various echinoid taxa, (3) intense bioturbation, and (4) sediment deposition by sporadic storm events.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , July 2019, pp. 764 - 784
Copyright
Copyright © 2019, The Paleontological Society 

Introduction

Today echinoids form a successful group of marine invertebrates living in a wide range of marine habitats from the equator to the polar seas and from the intertidal zone to abyssal depths and have left an extensive fossil record, dating back to the Ordovician (Pisera, Reference Pisera1994; Smith and Saville, Reference Smith and Savill2001; Kroh and Smith, Reference Kroh and Smith2010; Smith and Kroh, Reference Smith and Kroh2011). The diversity, abundance, and distribution of echinoids depend on numerous factors including, among others, temperature, hydrodynamic regimes, substrate types and complexity, nutrient availability, and distribution of predators (see Ernst et al., Reference Ernst, Hähnel and Seibertz1973; Smith, Reference Smith1984; McClanahan, Reference McClanahan1995, Reference McClanahan1998; Sala and Zabala, Reference Sala and Zabala1996; Guidetti and Mori, Reference Guidetti and Mori2005; Cordeiro et al., Reference Cordeiro, Harborne and Ferreira2014; Labbé-Bellas et al., Reference Labbé-Bellas, Cordeiro, Floeter and Segal2016; Petović and Krpo-Ćetković, Reference Petović and Krpo-Ćetković2016).

Echinoids represent key benthic faunal elements in shallow marine environments. Both regular echinoids, as dominant grazers on hard substrata, and irregular echinoids, as deposit feeders and bioturbators in or on unconsolidated sediments, are prominent in structuring a wide range of marine communities (e.g., Lawrence, Reference Lawrence1975; Carpenter, Reference Carpenter, Gabrié and Salvat1985; Harrold and Pearse, Reference Harrold, Pearse, Jangoux and Lawrence1987; Bak, Reference Bak1990; Widdicombe and Austen, Reference Widdicombe and Austen1998; Lohrer et al., Reference Lohrer, Thrush, Hunt, Hancock and Lundquist2005; Antoniadou and Vafidis, Reference Antoniadou, Vafidis and Withmore2014; Cabanillas-Terán et al., Reference Cabanillas-Terán, Loor-Andrade, Rodríguez-Barreras and Cortés2016).

In general, regular echinoids are more poorly represented than irregular echinoids in the fossil record (Kier, Reference Kier1977; Smith, Reference Smith1984; Greenstein, Reference Greenstein1993b) and usually occur as fragmented remains (e.g., Kier, Reference Kier1977). Beside differences in constructional morphology, this discrepancy is related to differences in paleoecology among regular and irregular forms and taphonomic processes affecting the echinoid test (Kier, Reference Kier1977; Smith, Reference Smith1984; Greenstein, Reference Greenstein1993b; Nebelsick, Reference Nebelsick1996). Regular echinoids diversified as grazers on hard substrata in shallow-water environments that represent areas of active erosion, whereas irregular echinoids diversified as deposit feeders often buried within mobile substrata in areas of active sedimentation where they have higher preservation potential (Smith, Reference Smith1984; Nebelsick, Reference Nebelsick1996). In addition, the poor fossil record of regular echinoids could be related to a taxonomic bias due to the difficulty in the identification of taxa based on fragmentary material (Greenstein, Reference Greenstein and White1993a, Reference Greensteinb).

Herein, an echinoid-rich sedimentary succession from the Miocene of central-western Sardinia (Italy), cropping out along the coast between S'Archittu and Santa Caterina di Pittinuri, is described with the two-fold aim of: (1) reconstructing paleoecological and associated paleoenvironmental conditions, and (2) investigating factors influencing the preservation potential of echinoids and their representation in fossil deposits. This succession includes an abundance of echinoid taxa that can be interpreted with respect to functional morphology and taphonomy. The importance of functional morphological interpretations of skeletal morphologies as well as comparisons to actualistic studies on echinoids for interpreting fossil echinoids have been discussed in detail within an ongoing re-evaluation of the paleoecology and preservation of the rich Miocene echinoid fauna of Sardinia (see Mancosu and Nebelsick, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2013, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2015, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2016, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2017a, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsickb; Mancosu et al., Reference Mancosu, Nebelsick, Kroh and Pillola2015).

Geological setting

The development of the Oligo-Miocene volcano-sedimentary succession of Sardinia that is related to the evolution of the present-day Mediterranean area shows a three-fold subdivision: (1) a Chattian to early Burdigalian first cycle, (2) a late Burdigalian to early Serravallian second cycle, and (3) a Serravallian to early Messinian third cycle (Assorgia et al., Reference Assorgia, Barca, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spano1997a, Reference Assorgia, Barca, Porcu, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spanob, Reference Assorgia, Barca, Mighela, Muntoni, Murgia, Porcu, Rizzo, Rombi, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spanoc; Carmignani et al., Reference Carmignani, Oggiano, Funedda, Conti and Pasci2015). This succession is predominately present in the NNW-SSE-oriented Sardinian Basin (Fig. 1.1), which originated during Oligo-Miocene tectonic movements of the Corsica-Sardinia Block (Cherchi and Montandert, Reference Cherchi and Montandert1982; Thomas and Gennesseaux, Reference Thomas and Gennesseaux1986; Carmignani et al., Reference Carmignani, Oggiano, Barca, Conti, Salvadori, Eltrudis, Funedda and Pasci2001; Facenna et al., Reference Facenna, Speranza, D'Ajello Caracciolo, Mattei and Oggiano2002; Speranza et al., Reference Speranza, Villa, Sagnotti, Florindo, Cosentino, Cipollari and Mattei2002).

Figure 1.

(1) Distribution of Miocene sedimentary rocks in Sardinia; (2) simplified geological map of the southwestern part of the Montiferru area (modified from Carboni et al., Reference Carboni, Lecca and Tilocca2010); (3) panoramic view of the studied sedimentary succession (see Geological setting section for subdivision of Units 1 and 2).

The studied sedimentary succession is located in the southwestern part of the Montiferru area (central-western Sardinia) (Fig. 1.1–1.3) along the coast between the small villages of S'Archittu and Santa Caterina di Pittinuri, and belongs to the second sedimentary cycle (Assorgia et al., Reference Assorgia, Barca, Mighela, Muntoni, Murgia, Porcu, Rizzo, Rombi, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spano1997c; Carboni et al., Reference Carboni, Lecca and Tilocca2010). In the Montiferru area, the Miocene volcano-sedimentary sequence starts with andesitic lavas and pyroclastic deposits of rhyolitic and dacitic composition (Assorgia et al., Reference Assorgia, Barca, Mighela, Muntoni, Murgia, Porcu, Rizzo, Rombi, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spano1997c; Bottero et al., Reference Bottero, Carboni and Pala2002 and references therein) dated by the K-Ar method to19–16 Ma and 17–13 Ma, respectively (e.g., Assorgia et al., Reference Assorgia, Barca, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spano1997a, Reference Assorgia, Barca, Mighela, Muntoni, Murgia, Porcu, Rizzo, Rombi, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spanoc and references therein). These deposits lie immediately beneath or are intercalated with a sedimentary succession that consists of heterometric conglomerates, epiclastites, and volcanoclastic deposits of fluviolacustrine origin (e.g., Assorgia et al., Reference Assorgia, Barca, Mighela, Muntoni, Murgia, Porcu, Rizzo, Rombi, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spano1997c; Mighela et al., Reference Mighela, Muntoni, Assorgia, Porcu, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spano1997) followed by a thick marine sedimentary sequence ranging from late Burdigalian to early Serravallian in age based on their stratigraphic position and macrofossil content (Comaschi Caria, Reference Comaschi Caria1951; Assorgia et al., Reference Assorgia, Barca, Mighela, Muntoni, Murgia, Porcu, Rizzo, Rombi, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spano1997c). This sequence consists of calcareous sandstones with abundant macrofossils, mainly pectinids, e.g., Gigantopecten nodosiformis (Pusch, Reference Pusch1837), and echinoids (Clypeaster spp.), passing upward to fine-grained calcarenites, marls, and limestones dominated by spatangoid echinoids. Lower-middle Miocene sedimentary rocks are unconformably overlain by subaerial, fluviodeltaic sandstones and conglomerates intercalated with Pliocene to lower Pleistocene trachytic and phonolitic lava flows (Beccaluva et al., Reference Beccaluva, Maciotta and Venturelli1974; Assorgia et al., Reference Assorgia, Barca, Mighela, Muntoni, Murgia, Porcu, Rizzo, Rombi, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spano1997c; Carboni et al., Reference Carboni, Lecca and Tilocca2010). As noted by Mighela et al. (Reference Mighela, Muntoni, Assorgia, Porcu, Spano, Assorgia, Barca and Spano1997), the tectonosedimentary development and the stratigraphic framework of the Montiferru area is comparable in part to that of the well-known Logudoro and Porto Torres basins (northern Sardinia) as described by Mazzei and Oggiano (Reference Mazzei and Oggiano1990) and Funedda et al. (Reference Funedda, Oggiano and Pasci2000, Reference Funedda, Oggiano, Pascucci and Pascucci2003).

The Miocene sedimentary sequence cropping out along the coast between Santa Caterina di Pittinuri and S'Archittu consists at the base of coralline algal grainstones to rudstones (Fig. 1.3, Unit 1) passing upward to very fine-grained lithologies (calcareous sandstones, mudstone, wackestones, and packstones) of Unit 2 (Fig. 1.3) that contains the echinoid assemblages studied herein. Fossil content is dominated by echinoid remains that occur throughout the sedimentary sequence and have been described in part by Comaschi Caria (Reference Comaschi Caria1951, Reference Comaschi Caria1972).

Materials and methods

Paleontological, taphonomic, and sedimentological analyses were conducted in the field and laboratory. Identification of carbonate rocks follows Embry and Klovan (Reference Embry and Klovan1971) and Lokier and Al Junaibi (Reference Lokier and Al Junaibi2016).

Two stratigraphic sections within the marine sedimentary sequence were measured in which echinoid remains are common throughout (Fig. 2.1, 2.2). These sections include three assemblages from beds that are particularly well exposed and characterized by a large number of echinoid remains. The first echinoid assemblage was found within the sedimentary succession east to Santa Caterina di Pittinuri (40°06′27”N, 08°29′11″E; Fig. 2.1). The second and third echinoid assemblages studied herein were found nearby within the sedimentary sequence cropping out between S'Archittu (40°05′47″N, 08°29′13″E) and Punta Cajaragas (40°05′58″N, 08°29′17″E) (Fig. 2.2). These beds were investigated in detail with respect to relative abundance of echinoid and other taxa, test orientation, as well as taphonomic and sedimentological features. Field determinations include abundance, orientation, preservation, and packing fabric fragments (following Kidwell and Holland, Reference Kidwell and Holland1991). Numerous complete and fragmented echinoid tests were systematically collected throughout the succession in 2017 and 2018. Many test fragments and spines could be attributed to specific echinoid taxa due the presence of characteristic surface characters and their excellent preservation. Taphonomic attributes observed in the field included the degree of fragmentation and orientation with respect to the bedding planes. The modes of life of the Recent analogous taxa of the fossil echinoids recognized in the present study were tabulated and compared with respect to their Recent depth distribution. The combined analysis of sedimentary characteristics, the functional-morphological interpretation of echinoids (and other bioclastic components), and taphonomic interpretation of attributes allowed for a detailed interpretation of paleoenvironment. Finally, the studied material was directly compared to previously investigated echinoids from fossil sublittoral environments. Taxonomic classification at and above genus level follows Kroh and Smith (Reference Kroh and Smith2010) and Smith and Kroh (Reference Smith and Kroh2011). Although some echinoid taxa could be assigned to a species level, rigorous taxonomic revision is beyond the scope of this study. Descriptive terminology of the echinoid test follows Smith (Reference Smith1978, Reference Smith1980b) and Smith and Kroh (Reference Smith and Kroh2011).

Figure 2.

Stratigraphic sections of (1) Santa Caterina di Pittinuri and (2) S'Archittu-Cajaragas, with occurrence, relative abundance, and taphonomic signatures of recognized echinoids (at genus levels) and associated macrofauna and flora within the assemblages studied herein.

Repository and institutional abbreviation.—Samples are stored in the Museo di Geologia e Paleontologia Domenico Lovisato, Università di Cagliari (MDLCA), under registration numbers MDLCA 23648–23655. Specimens figured herein without registration numbers currently remain in situ.

Results

Facies description and echinoid diversity

Assemblage 1 occurs within pale yellow to white, very fine-grained wacke- to packstones that are intensely bioturbated by large, branched, Thalassinoides-like burrows. This assemblage is dominated by spatangoid echinoids with the schizasterid Ova Gray, Reference Gray1825 and subordinately the brissopsid Brissopsis L. Agassiz, Reference Agassiz1840 (Fig. 3.1), along with rare test remains of the loveniid Hemipatagus Desor, Reference Desor1858 and the echinocardiid Echinocardium Gray, Reference Gray1825 (Fig. 3.2). Among irregular echinoids, the minute clypeasteroid Echinocyamus van Phelsum, Reference van Phelsum1774 is commonly found. Diadematid echinoid remains also occur abundantly (Fig. 3.3, 3.4). These can occur as articulated test elements (Fig. 3.3A) and isolated ambulacral and interambulacral plates (Fig. 3.4A) and associated spines (Fig. 3.3B, 3.4B), which can be present as long segments and fragments. Isolated Aristotle's lantern elements ascribed to these diadematids consist of large hemipyramids, rotulae, and grooved teeth. The regular toxopneustid echinoids Tripneustes L. Agassiz, Reference Agassiz and Agassiz1841 (Fig. 3.5) and Schizechinus Pomel, Reference Pomel1869 (Fig. 3.6) are also present. Other major biotic constituents are common coralline algae rhodoliths (Fig. 4.1) present in discrete layers. These rhodoliths range from 2–13 cm in maximum length, and are dominated by subspherical shapes with a few highly spherical, although more flattened examples also present. Growth forms are dominated by the presence of encrusting thalli and low protuberances. Encrustation by densely packed barnacles reaching heights of ca. 1 cm is very common. Rhodoliths also show bioerosion consisting of small Trypanites Mägdefrau, Reference Mägdefrau1932 and rare Gastrochaenolites Leymerie, Reference Leymerie1842. Further biotic remains consist of rare pectinids and internal bivalve molds. Bioturbation is present, with Thalassinoides-like burrows generally to 2 cm in diameter (Fig. 4.2).

Figure 3.

Assemblage 1: (1) Brissopsis in overturned position and spatangoid fragments; (2) Echinocardium (MDLCA 23648); (3, 4) test (A) and spine remains (B) of Diadema; (5) remains of Tripneustes interambulacral (A; MDLCA 23649) and (B) ambulacral (B; MDLCA 23650) plates, Aristotle's lantern (C), and spines (MDLCA 23651); (6) remains of Schizechinus complete test (A; MDLCA 23652) and test fragment (B; MDLCA 23653).

Figure 4.

(1) Rhodoliths from Assemblage 1 with encrusting barnacles; (2) detail of the sedimentary succession of Santa Caterina di Pittinuri showing Thalassinoides-like burrows.

Assemblage 2 occurs within highly bioturbated, pale yellow, very fine-grained wacke- to packstones. This assemblage is dominated by the spatangoid Brissopsis (Fig. 5.1A) and the minute clypeasteroid Echinocyamus (Fig. 5.1B). Also present among spatangoids are Ova (Fig. 5.1C), Opissaster Pomel, Reference Pomel1883, and the loveniids Lovenia Desor in L. Agassiz and Desor, Reference Agassiz and Desor1847 and Hemipatagus (Fig. 5.2). The clypeasteroid Clypeaster marginatus Lamarck, Reference Lamarck1816 also occurs (Fig. 5.3). Among regular echinoids, test remains of the minute trigonocidarid Genocidaris A. Agassiz, Reference Agassiz1869 (Fig. 5.4) occur frequently. Small test and spine fragments of diadematid echinoids were found sporadically along with large hemipyramids ascribed to these echinoids. Other major biotic constituents are ossicles of asterozoans, the epitoniid gastropod Cirsotrema Mörch, Reference Mörch1852, the smooth and thin-shelled pectinid bivalve Amusium Röding, Reference Röding1798, remains of the portuniid crab Portunus Weber, Reference Weber1795 often with articulated chelipeds, and isolated barnacles. Internal molds of bivalves and gastropods were also found. The accompanying microfauna includes nodosariid foraminiferans. The fine-grained carbonate deposits are intensely bioturbated by large, branched Thalassinoides-like burrows that reach a diameter of 4 cm. These burrows are often filled by coarse biogenic material consisting predominately of spatangoid test fragments and bivalve shell remains (Fig. 5.5). Complete tests of Echinocyamus and Genocidaris can be also found within these burrows.

Figure 5.

Assemblage 2: (1) spatangoid remains (A) and Echinocyamus (B) in fine-grained sediments within the sedimentary sequence of S'Archittu; (2) Hemipatagus (MDLCA 23654); (3) test remains of Clypeaster marginatus; (4) remains of Genocidaris (A) and Echinocyamus (B) (MDLCA 23655); (5) Thalassinoides-like burrows partially filled with fragments of echinoids and bivalves.

Assemblage 3 occurs within a highly bioturbated, whitish mud- to wackestone and is dominated by the spatangoid Brissopsis (Fig. 6.1) along with subordinate Ova (Fig. 6.2, 6.3). Sporadically present are the irregular echinoids Opissaster, Hemipatagus, and Echinocyamus and the regular echinoid Schizechinus.

Figure 6.

Assemblage 3: (1) Brissopsis; (2) Ova morphotype 1; (3) Ova morphotype 2.

Taphonomy

The taphonomic attributes of different echinoid taxa are summarized in Table 1. Echinoids are present as complete specimens as well as variously sized test fragments ranging from half tests to single isolated plates. Both inter- and intraplate fragmentation are present. Evidence of abrasion is lacking because echinoid tests and their fragments are very well preserved. Encrustation of the echinoids was not observed. Bioerosion is present as Oichnus-like circular drillholes on Echinocyamus and the spatangoids.

Table 1.

Taphonomic attributes of the various echinoid taxa recognized within the assemblages studied herein. 1 = whole test with spines; 2 = whole test without spines; 3 = quarter to half tests; 4 = larger fragments of articulated ambulacral/interambulacral plates still sutured together; 5 = isolated plates, spine fragments.

Among regular forms, diadematid echinoids occur commonly as isolated interambulacral and ambulacral plates, Aristotle's lantern elements, and spine fragments; partially preserved tests with associated spines were also found in Assemblage 1 (Fig. 3.3, 3.4). Tripneustes occurs almost exclusively as test fragments, which consist of several ambulacral and interambulacral plates still sutured together (Figs. 3.5A, B) and spine fragments. A single Tripneustes test with spines attached and Aristotle's lantern elements present was found in situ (Figs. 3.5C). Schizechinus occurs as complete tests lacking both spines and the apical system (Fig. 3.6A), and rarely as test fragments (Fig. 3.6B). In contrast, the minute Genocidaris is present mainly as complete tests lacking spines, some of which still retain the apical system (Fig. 5.4).

Clypeaster marginatus is present as complete tests but is mostly represented by pie-shaped portions of tests and smaller fragments. Fragments can be readily recognized due to the small, evenly distributed, sunken tubercles on the surface as well as presence of an internal support structure in the interior of the test. The clypeasteroid echinoid Echinocyamus is present mainly as complete tests, with fragmented material again showing internal supports.

Spatangoid echinoids are especially common and are present in all states of preservation from complete specimens to fragmented materials. The remnants of these echinoids also dominate the infillings of Thalassinoides-like burrows that can also include complete Echinocyamus and very rarely small specimens of complete spatangoids.

The echinoid remains are not homogeneously distributed within the deposit. In Assemblages 1 and 2, echinoid remains range from densely to loosely packed and are dispersed with complete tests reaching densities of 15 individuals/m2 on exposed rock surfaces. In Assemblage 3, echinoid remains range from loosely packed to dispersed. The echinoids show no preferred orientation both in plan view and cross section. Both complete specimens and fragments show orientations ranging from concordant to perpendicular to the bedding plane. In all three assemblages, complete specimens oriented aboral side up and concordant to the bedding plane are less common than oblique and overturned specimens (Fig. 7).

Figure 7.

Orientation data of complete echinoid specimens within the assemblages studied herein. N = number of counted specimens.

Discussion

Functional morphology of echinoid tests and actualistic comparisons

The interpretations of life styles, functional morphological aspects, and actualistic comparisons of many of these echinoid taxa have been reviewed in previous papers dealing with the Miocene echinoids of Sardinia (see Mancosu and Nebelsick Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2013, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2015, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2016, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2017a, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsickb; Mancosu et al., Reference Mancosu, Nebelsick, Kroh and Pillola2015) as summarized in Table 2. Newly discussed taxa (see below) include the diadematoid Diadema Gray, Reference Gray1825, the camarodont Schizechinus, the spatangoid Echinocardium (recorded for the first time from the Miocene of Sardinia), and two morphotypes of Ova.

Table 2.

Palaeoecological interpretation of the echinoid taxa recognized herein, with comparisons with Recent analogs.

Diadematid echinoid remains occur abundantly in Assemblage 1 and sporadically in Assemblage 2. Diadema and Centrostephanus Peters, Reference Peters1855 were reported from the Miocene of Sardinia based on spine fragments (Cotteau, Reference Cotteau1895; Lambert, Reference Lambert1907); however, as previously discussed (e.g., by Kroh, Reference Kroh2005 and Donovan et al., Reference Donovan, Renema, Pinnington and Veltkamp2011), subfamilial classification of diadematid echinoids based on spines and test fragments is problematic. The discovered remains can be assigned to the genus Diadema based on the presence of trigeminate ambulacral plates bearing a single large tubercle, with pore-pairs of P2 type in a single series that widen adorally to form a phyllode with pore-pairs of P3 type, interambulacral plates containing up to four subequal, perforated, crenulate tubercles, and hollow and verticillate spines showing clearly asymmetrical distinct bases.

Diadema is interpreted herein as living epifaunally within coralline algal beds as indicated by the presence of oral P3 type isopores. These are partitioned isopores surrounded by a broad attachment area for the rectractor muscle of the tube feet and are present in shallow-water species living on rocks or reef structure, in crevices, or beneath boulders (Smith, Reference Smith1978). Diadematids, e.g., Diadema and Centrostephanus, are epifaunal regular echinoids that inhabit mostly protected littoral and sublittoral environments (Mortensen, Reference Mortensen1940). Diadema is among the most ecologically important echinoids in tropical oceans (Andrew and Byrne, Reference Andrew, Byrne and Lawrence2007; Muthiga and McClanahan, Reference Muthiga, McClanahan and Lawrence2007 and references therein) and has only been recently observed in the shallow water of the Mediterranean Sea, representing an invasive Lessepsian migrant from the Red Sea (Yokes and Galil, Reference Yokes and Galil2006; Nader and El Indary, Reference Nader and El Indary2011; Bronstein et al., Reference Bronstein, Georgopoulou and Kroh2017). Species of Diadema, e.g., D. antillarum Philippi, Reference Philippi1845, D. setosum (Leske, Reference Leske1778), D. mexicanum A. Agassiz, Reference Agassiz1863, and D. ascensionis Mortensen, Reference Mortensen and von Drygalski1909, occupy diverse habitats from shallow water to a depth of 400 m, although they are most abundant in littoral areas, on rock and sandy substrata, coral reefs, mangrove roots, and seagrass beds (Randall et al., Reference Randall, Schroeder and Starck1964; Chesher, Reference Chesher1972; Kier, Reference Kier1975; Smith, Reference Smith1978; Serafy, Reference Serafy1979; Coppard and Campbell, Reference Coppard and Campbell2005, Reference Coppard and Campbell2007; Lessios, Reference Lessios2005; Muthiga and McClanahan, Reference Muthiga, McClanahan and Lawrence2007; Gondim et al., Reference Gondim, Dias and Christoffersen2013; Nateghi Shahrokni et al., Reference Nateghi Shahrokni, Fatemi, Nabavi and Vosoughi2016). They are mainly omnivorous grazers and detritus feeders, scraping algal films off hard substrata and feeding on seagrasses, foraminiferans, crustaceans, and small organisms found on the sea floor (Mortensen, Reference Mortensen1940; Lewis, Reference Lewis1964; Randall et al., Reference Randall, Schroeder and Starck1964; Pearse, Reference Pearse1970; Serafy, Reference Serafy1979; De Ridder and Lawrence, Reference De Ridder, Lawrence, Jangoux and Lawrence1982). Diadema, as many other diadematids, is highly light sensitive, often foraging at night and remaining hidden in rocky crevices and holes during the day (Mortensen, Reference Mortensen1940; Tuya et al., Reference Tuya, Martin and Luque2004; Andrew and Byrne, Reference Andrew, Byrne and Lawrence2007).

The toxopneustid Schizechinus from Assemblages 1 and 3, which was described by Cotteau (Reference Cotteau1895) and Comaschi Caria (Reference Comaschi Caria1951) as Psammechinus calarensis Cotteau, Reference Cotteau1895, is a small to medium-sized echinoid interpreted herein as living in low to moderate energy environments as suggested by the presence of oral P2 isopores (Smith, Reference Smith1978). Schizechinus is exclusively known from fossils and occurs commonly in carbonate and less commonly in siliciclastic shallow-water sediments in Miocene sedimentary successions of the Mediterranean and central Paratethys (see Challis, Reference Challis1980; Schmid et al., Reference Schmid, Harzhauser and Kroh2001; Kroh, Reference Kroh2005).

Schizechinus is closely similar to the extant toxopneustid Sphaerechinus Desor, Reference Desor1856, a monotypic genus living in the Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic Ocean. Sphaerechinus granularis (Lamarck, Reference Lamarck1816) occurs from the littoral zone to depths of 120 m on a wide variety of substrata, including mud and fine- to coarse-grained sands, rocky bottoms, seagrass, and algal meadows, and also in coarse-grained, coralline-algae-dominated sediments (e.g., Koehler, Reference Koehler1927; Mortensen, Reference Mortensen1943; Tortonese, Reference Tortonese1965; Ernst et al., Reference Ernst, Hähnel and Seibertz1973; Smith, Reference Smith1978; Harmelin and Duval, Reference Harmelin and Duval1983; Riedl, Reference Riedl1983; Guillou and Michel, Reference Guillou and Michel1993; Unger and Lott, Reference Unger, Lott, David, Guille, Feral and Roux1994; Sartoretto and Francour, Reference Sartoretto and Francour1997; Palacín et al., Reference Palacín, Turon, Ballesteros, Giribert and López1998; Zavodnik, Reference Zavodnik2003; Koukouras et al., Reference Koukouras, Sinis, Bobori, Savas and Miltiadis-Spyridon2007; Despalatović et al., Reference Despalatović, Grubelić, Piccinetti, Cvitović, Antolić, Žuljević and Nikolić2009; Antoniadou and Vafidis, Reference Antoniadou, Vafidis and Withmore2014; Petović and Krpo-Ćetković, Reference Petović and Krpo-Ćetković2016; Sievers and Nebelsick, Reference Sievers and Nebelsick2018). Sphaerechinus is mainly herbivorous, feeding on seagrass, encrusting coralline algae, and soft algae. It also selectively consumes detritus when living in soft-bottom environments (De Ridder and Lawrence, Reference De Ridder, Lawrence, Jangoux and Lawrence1982; Guillou and Lumingas, Reference Guillou and Lumingas1998; Martínez-Pita et al., Reference Martínez-Pita, Sánchez-España and García2008; Elmasry et al., Reference Elmasry, Omar, Abdel Razek and El-Magd2013).

The echinocardiid Echinocardium sp. from Assemblage 1 represents the first report of this genus in the Miocene of Sardinia. Its globular test (sensu Kanazawa, Reference Kanazawa1992) with a keeled plastron, the presence of nonconjugated, partitioned isopores for funnel-building tube feet in ambulacrum III, together with an inner fasciole, allowed this spatangoid echinoid to burrow deeply in fine-grained sediments. The presence of minute pores within the shield-shaped subanal fasciole indicates that Echinocardium sp. was possibly able to construct and maintain a single sanitary drain, as reported, e.g., by Nichols (Reference Nichols1959) for extant species of Echinocardium, e.g., E. cordatum (Pennant, Reference Pennant1777), E. pennatifidum Norman, Reference Norman1869, and E. flavescens (O.F. Müller, Reference Müller1776).

Extant species of Echinocardium are infaunal deposit feeders that inhabit a wide range of environments from intertidal to midshelf burrowing in different types of sediments, mostly fine sands to mud, predominantly in temperate regions (Mortensen, Reference Mortensen1951; Nichols, Reference Nichols1959; Buchanan, Reference Buchanan1966; Tortonese, Reference Tortonese1977; De Ridder, Reference De Ridder and Lawrence1982; Duineveld and Jenness, Reference Duineveld and Jenness1984; Kanazawa, Reference Kanazawa1992; Nakamura, Reference Nakamura2001; Zavodnik, Reference Zavodnik2003). Field studies on E. cordatum show that this spatangoid inhabits both littoral and offshore environments burrowing at depths from a few to ~ 20 cm deep in sandy and silty sediments. Ursin (Reference Ursin1960) and Buchanan (Reference Buchanan1966) documented populations of E. cordatum from North Sea coasts occurring offshore at depths of 30–40 m, dispersed in large discrete patches at maximum densities of 40 individuals/m2. Higher densities of Echinocardium (to 200 individuals/m2) were reported from Seto Inland Sea, Japan (Nakamura, Reference Nakamura2001) and from the Belgian continental shelf (Degraer et al., Reference Degraer, Wittoeck, Appeltans, Cooreman, Deprez, Hillewaert, Hostens, Mees, Vanden Berghe and Vincx2006).

Two morphotypes of the schizasterid Ova were identified within the studied assemblages (see Fig. 6.2, 6.3). Morphotype 1 has a test with a subcircular outline and a relatively narrow and shallow ambulacrum III. Morphotype 2 differs in having a test with a more depressed wedge-shaped profile, slightly elongated outline, and larger and deeper ambulacrum III with a greater number of partitioned isopores. Both Ova morphotypes co-occur within Assemblages 2 and 3; morphotype 1 has not been recognized within Assemblage 1.

Both Ova morphotypes are interpreted here to have burrowed deeply in fine-grained sediments. Morphotype 1, however, owing to its more wedge-shaped profile, deeper and wider frontal ambulacrum with more numerous well-developed partitioned isopores for funnel-building tube feet, posteriorly located apical system, keeled posterior interambulacrum, long and curved anterior-paired petals, shorter posterior-paired petals, as well as peripetalous and lateroanal fascioles possibly buried deeper than morphotype 2. In both forms, the aboral tuberculation is fine, uniform, and dense indicating the presence of a dense canopy of spines enabling burrowing within fine-grained substrata with the spines used to support the top of the burrow and maintain a space for water circulation (e.g., Gale and Smith, Reference Gale and Smith1982; Kanazawa, Reference Kanazawa1992). The presence of a lateroanal fasciole and partitioned isopores in the subanal region enabled the construction of sanitary drains.

Most extant species of the genus Ova and the closely related genus Schizaster include shallow and deeper burrowing forms and inhabit inner neritic environments shallower than 100 m depth (Mortensen, Reference Mortensen1951). Ova canalifera (Lamarck, Reference Lamarck1816) from the Mediterranean is known to live buried in fine-grained sediments to 20 cm deep, with maximum abundances between 20 and 70 m depth (Tortonese, Reference Tortonese1965; Schinner, Reference Schinner1993; Bromley et al., Reference Bromley, Jensen and Asgaard1995; Zavodnik, Reference Zavodnik2003; Koukouras et al., Reference Koukouras, Sinis, Bobori, Savas and Miltiadis-Spyridon2007). This echinoid constructs both a respiratory funnel and a subanal sanitary drain (Schinner, Reference Schinner1993; Asgaard and Bromley, Reference Asgaard, Bromley, Bromley, Buatois, Mángano, Genise and Melchor2007). Schizaster lacunosus (Linnaeus, Reference Linnaeus1758) is a deposit feeder that occurs buried in fine-grained sediments at 5–90 m depth (Mortensen, Reference Mortensen1951; Schin and Thompson, Reference Schin and Thompson1982; Kanazawa, Reference Kanazawa1992; Chao, Reference Chao2000; Banno, Reference Banno2008). Schizaster floridiensis (Kier and Grant, Reference Kier and Grant1965) from the Caribbean Sea lives at water depths of 9–65 m (Rodríguez-Barreras, Reference Rodríguez-Barreras2014) burrowing in mud and sand bottoms to 25 cm below the sediment surface (Chesher, Reference Chesher1966). The distribution of Ova seems to be primarily controlled by the availability of a suitable soft substratum consisting of silts to fine-grained sands within which this echinoid burrows. If such suitable substrata are present, these echinoids can occur both in protected shallow water as well as in deeper environments.

Paleoenvironmental reconstruction of the echinoid assemblages

The Miocene echinoid fauna found within the studied sedimentary succession, which is dominated by irregular echinoids (mainly spatangoids) as well as associated fauna and flora, lithology, and sedimentary features, points to relatively deep, sublittoral environments (Figs. 8, 9). The echinoid assemblages are interpreted as autochthonous to parautochthonous. Although taphonomic signatures, e.g., the state of disarticulation and fragmentation and orientation with respect to the bedding plane, clearly show that echinoid remains are not preserved in life positions; they are exquisitely preserved with respect to surface details, including tuberculation, ambulacral pore-pairs, and fascioles, and were not transported for any appreciable distance before final burial. The preservation of a large number of complete tests lacking spines and showing no evidence of encrustation indicates short surface-residence times on the sediment/water interface before being buried in the sediment. Differences among the three studied assemblages with respect to echinoid diversity, the relative abundance of taxa, and the associated fauna, flora, and trace fossils can be detected (see Table 3, Fig. 9).

Figure 8.

Bathymetric distributions and modes of life of the Recent analogous taxa of the fossil echinoids recognized in the present study with interpreted depths for the three assemblages described herein. Each box plot represents 25% and 75% quartile of all values, Q1 and Q3, respectively. Black line inside box represents the median. Whiskers drawn from Q1 and Q3 to the largest values < 1.5 times the interquartile range (Q1–Q3). Outliers indicated by black dots. A1 = Assemblage 1; A2 = Assemblage 2; A3 = Assemblage 3.

Figure 9.

Paleoecological reconstruction of the echinoid assemblages from the investigated levels in the sedimentary successions studied herein. The presence and depths of bioturbation are indicated; depth scale is the same for Assemblage 1, 2, and 3. See text for density and preservation of the various taxa within the assemblages.

Table 3.

Summary of taxonomic, sedimentological, and taphonomic features of the echinoid assemblages from Santa Caterina di Pittinuri and S'Archittu-Cajaragas.

In Assemblage 1, the co-occurrence of the camarodonts Tripneustes and Schizechinus and the diadematoid Diadema among regular forms, the spatangoid echinoids Ova, Brissopsis, Hemipatagus, Echinocardium, and the clypeasteroid Echinocyamus, and the presence of rhodoliths loosely scattered throughout the fine-grained sediments, indicate a highly structured sublittoral environment still within the photic zone, with soft substrata and rhodolith patches.

Rhodolith beds frequently occur today in the mesophotic zone mostly at ~ 40–60 m water depth (Bassi et al., Reference Bassi, Nebelsick, Checconi, Hohenegger and Iryu2009; Foster et al., Reference Foster, Amado-Filho, Kamenos, Riosmena-Rodriguez, Steller, Lang, Marinelli, Roberts and Taylor2013; Basso et al., Reference Basso, Babbini, Kaleb, Bracchi and Falace2016) where there are low, but still sufficient light levels for photosynthesis (Littler et al., Reference Littler, Littler and Hanisak1991; Foster, Reference Foster2001). Rhodolith beds provide three-dimensional hard substrata and support a high diversity and abundance of marine flora and fauna (e.g., Steller et al., Reference Steller, Riosmena-Rodrìguez, Foster and Roberts2003; Pascelli et al., Reference Pascelli, Riul, Riosmena-Rodrìguez, Scherner, Nunes, Hall-Spencer, Oliveira and Horta2013; Teichert, Reference Teichert2014; Horta et al., Reference Horta, Riul, Amado Filho, Gurgel, Berchez, Nunes, Scherner, Pereira, Lotufo, Peres, Sissini, Bastos, Rosa, Munoz, Martins, Gouvêa, Carvalho, Bergstrom, Schubert, Bahia, Rodrigues, Rörig, Barufi and Figueiredo2016; Hernandez-Kantun et al., Reference Hernandez-Kantun, Hall-Spencer, Grall, Adey, Rindi, Maggs, Bárbara, Peña, Riosmena-Rodríguez, Aguirre and Nelson2017, and references therein), including echinoids (James, Reference James2000; Kamenos et al., Reference Kamenos, Moore and Hall-Spencer2004; Gagnon et al., Reference Gagnon, Matheson and Stapleton2012; Gondim et al., Reference Gondim, Dias, Duarte, Riul, Lacouth and Christoffersen2014; Horta et al., Reference Horta, Riul, Amado Filho, Gurgel, Berchez, Nunes, Scherner, Pereira, Lotufo, Peres, Sissini, Bastos, Rosa, Munoz, Martins, Gouvêa, Carvalho, Bergstrom, Schubert, Bahia, Rodrigues, Rörig, Barufi and Figueiredo2016).

Assemblage 2, with the co-occurrence of the spatangoids Ova, Opissaster, Brissopsis, Lovenia, and Hemipatagus, the clypeasteroids Echinocyamus and Clypeaster marginatus, and the camarodont Genocidaris, represents a relatively deep, outer-sublittoral environment with low to moderate water energy and mobile, fine-grained sand substrate. The sediments were heavily affected by Thalassinoides-like burrows presumably produced by thalassinid shrimps that can form large populations in extant littoral and sublittoral environments (see Dworschak, Reference Dworschak2000). Sporadic high-energy events not only led to temporarily exhumation, overturning, and reworking of the echinoids, but also to the infilling of burrows by densely packed echinoid remains. The Thalassinoides-like burrows filled by echinoid test fragments and bivalve shell remains are interpreted as tubular tempestites that represent open tubes produced by burrowing animals subsequently filled with sediments and bioclasts transported by storm-generated currents (Wanless et al., Reference Wanless, Tedesco and Tyrrell1988; Tedesco and Wanless, Reference Tedesco and Wanless1991).

Assemblage 3, with its lower diversity and the dominance of burrowing spatangoid echinoids including Brissopsis and, subordinately, Ova, and the sporadic occurrence of Opissaster, Hemipatagus, Echinocyamus, and Schizechinus represents a slightly deeper and quieter environment with muddy substrate, possibly slightly below normal storm wave base. Depositional environments characterized by fine-grained, carbonate sediments with highly bioturbated internal structures resulting from the activities of infaunal animals, including echinoids and crustacean decapods, occur today in relatively shallow sublittoral settings with low energy conditions and episodic storm events (e.g., Blom and Aslop, Reference Blom and Aslop1988; Scoffin, Reference Scoffin1988; Bentley and Nittrouer, Reference Bentley and Nittrouer2012) and provide an analog for the environments described herein.

Various trophic resources were exploited, as denoted by the co-occurrence of omnivorous and algal-grazing regular echinoids and both shallow- and deeper-burrowing, deposit-feeding irregular echinoids. Niche separation among regular echinoids was reported according to food preferences, type of foraging, morphological adaptations, predation, and water depth (e.g., Keller, Reference Keller1983; McClanahan, Reference McClanahan1988; Jacob et al., Reference Jacob, Terpstra and Brey2003; Coppard and Campbell, Reference Coppard and Campbell2005; Privitera et al., Reference Privitera, Noli, Falugi and Chiantore2008; Bonaviri et al., Reference Bonaviri, Fernández, Fanelli, Badalamenti and Gianguzza2011; Cordeiro et al., Reference Cordeiro, Harborne and Ferreira2014; Cabanillas-Terán et al., Reference Cabanillas-Terán, Loor-Andrade, Rodríguez-Barreras and Cortés2016). A further example of habitat/resource partitioning has been reported for the sea urchins Arbacia lixula (Linnaeus, Reference Linnaeus1758) and Paracentrotus lividus (Lamarck, Reference Lamarck1816), which can coexist even at relatively high densities in the infralittoral zone of the Mediterranean due to nonoverlapping feeding preferences (Régis, Reference Régis1979; Privitera et al., Reference Privitera, Noli, Falugi and Chiantore2008; Bonaviri et al., Reference Bonaviri, Fernández, Fanelli, Badalamenti and Gianguzza2011; Antoniadou and Vafidis, Reference Antoniadou, Vafidis and Withmore2014, and references therein).

The co-occurrence of different deposit-feeding irregular echinoids was observed in all assemblages. Interspecific competition below the sediment-water interface among different burrowing, deposit-feeding echinoids could have been limited by their different burrowing depths, feeding strategies, and food selection leading to infaunal tiering (see discussion by Mancosu and Nebelsick, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2017a, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsickb, and references therein). Spatangoid-dominated echinoid assemblages that indicate outer sublittoral environments with low-energy conditions have been reported to occur throughout Miocene deposits of the circum-Mediterranean area (e.g., Néraudeau et al., Reference Néraudeau, Goubert, Lacour and Rouchy2001; Kroh and Nebelsick, Reference Kroh and Nebelsick2003; Mancosu and Nebelsick, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2016, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2017b). A comparable echinoid fauna as those described herein was recognized in the lower/middle Miocene sedimentary succession of the Porto Torres area, northern Sardinia (see Mancosu and Nebelsick, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2017b).

Differences with respect to lithology and echinoid diversity are recognized (see Table 4). In Porto Torres, the fine-grained sandstones, which have a higher terrigenous content than the fine-grained deposits of Santa Caterina-S'Archittu, are also intensely bioturbated by Thalassinoides-like burrows and are likewise associated with intercalated rhodolith beds. This succession contains a higher echinoid diversity, with nine genera of spatangoids, the presence of the echinoneid Koehleraster Lambert and Thiéry, Reference Lambert and Thiéry1921 and clear differences in the regular echinoids associated with the rhodolith beds, with spines and test fragments of the cidaroids Prionocidaris A. Agassiz, Reference Agassiz1863 and Eucidaris Pomel, Reference Pomel1883 along with the remains of Schizechinus and trigonocidarids. Differences in echinoid diversity and composition between Porto Torres and Santa Caterina-S'Archittu could be related to the preference for particular substrata in some echinoid taxa.

Table 4.

Comparison between echinoid faunas of Santa Caterina-S'Archittu and Porto Torres. F-g C = fine-grained carbonates; F-g S = fine-grained sandstones; Rhb = rhodolith beds.

In Porto Torres, rhodoliths and accompanying echinoid faunas are associated with tubular tempestites, whereas those in the present study occur with Thalassinoides-like burrows containing surrounding sediment. This could indicate a lack of high storm activity in Assemblage 1, although more studies are needed in this respect on the morphologies and coralline algal diversities within the rhodoliths of the two localities. In both this study and Porto Torres, a general low-energy, moderately deep, sublittoral environment with high rates of bioturbation and episodes of sediment deposition by storms is interpreted.

Preservation potential of echinoids and comparative taphonomy

Paleoecological interpretation can be biased by taphonomic and sedimentological overprinting that affects the preservation of the various echinoid taxa and their representation within the assemblages. The factors leading to the taphonomy of Miocene echinoids has been discussed in detail (see Mancosu and Nebelsick, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2013, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2015, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2016, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2017a, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsickb; Mancosu et al., Reference Mancosu, Nebelsick, Kroh and Pillola2015). The results of the present study show that preservation potentials can vary widely among different taxa in sublittoral environments (see Table 1). Regular echinoid preservation displays a taphonomic gradient ranging from intact tests with spines attached to isolated plates and spine fragments. These differences in preservation can be related to differences in skeletal microstructure as well as variations in paleoenvironmental and taphonomic conditions and episodic events. Diadematids, for example, have tests with imbricate or only slightly interlocking plates that tend to disarticulate rapidly when subjected to postmortem transportation and reworking. These echinoids thus show a lower preservation potential than camarodont echinoids (Smith, Reference Smith1984; Greenstein, Reference Greenstein1989, Reference Greenstein1991, Reference Greenstein1992, Reference Greenstein and White1993a, Reference Greensteinb, Reference Greenstein1995; Kidwell and Baumiller, Reference Kidwell and Baumiller1990; see discussion by Mancosu et al., Reference Mancosu, Nebelsick, Kroh and Pillola2015). The occurrence of diadematid test remains and associated spines are interpreted to be the result of a rapid influx of sediments in an otherwise relatively calm background depositional environment.

Taphonomic signatures show that additional factors other than test stability and infaunal mode of life play important roles in the preservation of irregular echinoids. In the interpreted moderately deeper-water environments with low to moderate water energies, the echinoid tests were only sporadically exposed to high water movement and sediment reworking (see discussion by Mancosu and Nebelsick, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2017b, and references therein). A further important factor influencing the preservation potential of infaunal echinoids is sediment disturbance due to the pervasive bioturbation by deep-tier thalassinid decapod crustaceans and infaunal echinoids themselves, specifically spatangoids, which are among the most active and widespread bioturbators in extant marine environments, able to rework relatively large volumes of sediment (e.g., Hollertz et al., Reference Hollertz, Sköld and Rosenberg1998; Hollertz and Duchêne, Reference Hollertz and Duchêne2001; Lohrer et al., Reference Lohrer, Thrush, Hunt, Hancock and Lundquist2005; Thompson and Riddle, Reference Thompson and Riddle2005; Gingras et al., Reference Gingras, Pemberton, Dashtgard and Dafoe2008). Bioturbation thus represents a source of echinoid test breakage in quiet sublittoral environments (see discussion by Mancosu and Nebelsick, Reference Mancosu and Nebelsick2017b).

Conclusions

An echinoid-dominated, fine-grained, carbonate sedimentary succession from the middle Miocene of central-western Sardinia has been recognized. Three assemblages have been detected based on echinoid diversity and relative abundance as well as associated fauna and flora, trace fossils, and lithological/sedimentological features. The results of this study allow an outer sublittoral environment at moderate depth, below fair-weather wave base, to be reconstructed. Differences among the assemblages can be related to substrate variation and the availability of food resources.

Assemblage 1 occurs in very fine-grained packstone to wackestone with rhodolith patches and is characterized by the co-occurrence of infaunal deposit feeders, mainly spatangoids and epibenthic grazers, e.g., the diadematid Diadema and the toxopneustids Tripneustes and Schizechinus. This assemblage represents a sheltered environment with structural substrate complexity, including hard substrata, represented by rhodolith patches, and fine-grained soft substrata, where different food resources could be exploited.

Assemblages 2 occurs in very fine-grained packstones to wackestones, highly bioturbated by Thalassinoides-like burrows filled by echinoid and bivalve debris that are interpreted as tubular tempestites. The assemblage is dominated by burrowing deposit feeding spatangoids (Brissopsis, Ova, Opissaster, Lovenia, and Hemipatagus) and, subordinately, clypeasteroids (Echinocyamus and Clypeaster marginatus), with regular echinoids represented by the small trigonocidarid Genocidaris. This assemblage indicates a moderately energetic environment with fine-grained sediments.

Assemblage 3 occurs in mudstone and is largely dominated by the spatangoid Brissopsis and, subordinately, by two different morphotypes of Ova. Associated echinoid taxa, including the spatangoids Opissaster and Hemipatagus, the clypeasteroid Echinocyamus, and the regular echinoid Schizechinus, are rarely encountered. Assemblage 3, with its lower echinoid diversity, points to a deeper-water environment with muddy substrata, low-energy conditions, and limited food resources.

The co-occurrence of different regular and irregular echinoids within each assemblage indicates resource partitioning among both epifaunal regular echinoids and infaunal deposit-feeding irregular forms. These findings of the present study complement those of recent paleoecological investigations on the echinoid fauna of the Miocene of Sardinia and indicate that the diversity pattern of echinoids in sublittoral environments is a reflection of both environmental factors and taphonomic processes that affect preservation of the echinoid taxa. Substrate heterogeneity, including both hard and soft bottoms, low-energy conditions with sporadic episodes of rapid sedimentation, possibly related to storms, and pervasive bioturbation, which is potentially a source of shell breakage, led to the composition and preservation of a highly diversified echinoid fauna.

Acknowledgments

We thank G.L. Pillola and L. Lecca (Università degli Studi di Cagliari) for their help and useful discussions during preparation of this paper. We are grateful to L. Zachos and J.R. Thompson for their comments and suggestions that helped improve the manuscript.

References

Agassiz, A., 1863, List of echinoderms sent to different institutions in exchange for other specimens, with annotations: Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, v. 1, p. 17–28.Google Scholar
Agassiz, A., 1869, Preliminary report on the echini and star-fishes dredged in deep water between Cuba and the Florida Reef by L.F. De Pourtalès, Assist. U.S. Coast Survey: Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, v. 1, p. 253–308.Google Scholar
Agassiz, A., 1872, Preliminary notice of a few species of echini: Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy at Harvard College, v. 3, p. 55–58.Google Scholar
Agassiz, L., 1836, Prodrome d'une monographie des Radiaires ou Échinodermes: Mémoires de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de Neuchâtel, v. 1, p. 168–199.Google Scholar
Agassiz, L., 1840, Catalogus Systematicus Ectyporum Echinodermatum Fossilium Musei Neocomiensis, Secundum Ordinem Zoologicum Dispositus; Adjectis Synonymis Recentioribus, Nec Non Stratis et Locis in Quibus Reperiuntur: Sequuntur Characteres Diagnostici Generum Novorum Vel Minus Cognitorum: Neuchâtel, Switzerland, Petitpierre, 20 p.Google Scholar
Agassiz, L., 1841, Observations sur les progrés récens de l'histoire naturelle des échinodermes, in Agassiz, L., ed., Monographies d’Échinodermes Vivants et Fossiles: Neuchâtel, Switzerland, Petitpierre, 20 p.10.5962/bhl.title.126954Google Scholar
Agassiz, L., and Desor, P.J.E., 1846, Catalogue raisonné des familles, des genres, et des espèces de la classe des échinodermes: Annales des Sciences Naturelles, ser. 3, Zoologie, v. 6, p. 305–374.Google Scholar
Agassiz, L., and Desor, P.J.E., 1847, Catalogue raisonné des familles, des genres, et des espèces de la classe des échinodermes: Annales des Sciences Naturelles, ser. 3, Zoologie, v. 8, p. 5–35.Google Scholar
Andrew, N.L., and Byrne, M., 2007, Ecology of Centrostephanus, in Lawrence, J.M., ed., Edible Sea Urchins: Biology and Ecology: Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, p. 191–204.Google Scholar
Antoniadou, C., and Vafidis, D., 2014, Population ecology of common sea urchins (Arbacia lixula, Paracentrotus lividus, Sphaerechinus granularis) on algal-dominated rocky shore in the Aegean Sea, in Withmore, E., ed., Echinoderms: Ecology, Habitats and Reproductive Biology: New York, Nova Science Publishers, p. 147–166.Google Scholar
Asgaard, U., and Bromley, R.G., 2007, Co-occurrence of schizasterid echinoids and trace fossil Scolicia, Pleistocene, Greece: Facts, myths, and fascioles, in Bromley, R.G., Buatois, L.A., Mángano, G., Genise, J.F., and Melchor, R.N., eds., Sediment-Organism Interactions: A Multifaceted Ichnology: SEPM Special Publications, v. 88, p. 85–94.Google Scholar
Assorgia, A., Barca, S., and Spano, C., 1997a, Lineamenti stratigrafici, tettonici e magmatici del Terziario della Sardegna, in Assorgia, A., Barca, S., and Spano, C., eds., Convegno-escursione: La ‘Fossa sarda’ Nell'Ambito Dell'Evoluzione Geodinamica Cenozoica del Mediterraneo Occidentale, Libro Guida e Riassunti, Villanovaforru, 19–22 June, p. 13–25.Google Scholar
Assorgia, A., Barca, S., Porcu, A., and Spano, C., 1997b, Il Miocene sedimentario e vulcanico della Sardegna settentrionale. Inquadramento stratigrafico e riconoscimento di unità deposizionali, in Assorgia, A., Barca, S., and Spano, C., eds., Convegno-escursione: La ‘Fossa sarda’ Nell'Ambito Dell'Evoluzione Geodinamica Cenozoica del Mediterraneo Occidentale, Libro Guida e Riassunti, Villanovaforru, 19–22 June, p. 120–122.Google Scholar
Assorgia, A., Barca, S., Mighela, P., Muntoni, A., Murgia, G., Porcu, A., Rizzo, R., Rombi, G., and Spano, C., 1997c, La successione vulcano-sedimenatria Oligo-miocenica del settore compreso tra Bosa e Santa Caterina di Pittinuri (Sardegna centro-occidentale), in Assorgia, A., Barca, S., and Spano, C., eds., Convegno-escursione: La ‘Fossa sarda’ Nell'Ambito Dell'Evoluzione Geodinamica Cenozoica del Mediterraneo Occidentale, Libro Guida e Riassunti, Villanovaforru, 19–22 June, p. 113–114.Google Scholar
Bacolod, P.T., and Dy, D.T., 1986, Growth, recruitment pattern and mortality rate of the sea urchin, Tripneustes gratilla Linnaeus, in a seaweed farm at Danahon Reef, central Philippines: The Philippine Scientist, v. 23, p. 1–14.Google Scholar
Bak, R.P.M., 1990, Pattern of echinoid bioerosion in two Pacific coral reef lagoons: Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 66, p. 267–272.Google Scholar
Banno, T., 2008, Ecological and taphonomic significance of spatangoid spines: Relationship between mode of occurrence and water temperature: Paleontological Research, v. 12, p. 145–157, doi:10.2517/1342-8144(2008)12[145:EATSOS]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
Bassi, D., Nebelsick, J.H., Checconi, A., Hohenegger, J., and Iryu, Y., 2009, Present-day and fossil rhodolith pavements compared: Their potential for analysing shallow-water carbonate deposits: Sedimentary Geology, v. 214, p. 74–84, doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2008.03.010.Google Scholar
Basso, D., Babbini, L., Kaleb, S., Bracchi, V.A., and Falace, A., 2016, Monitoring deep Mediterranean rhodolith beds: Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, v. 26, p. 549–561, doi:10.1002/aqc.2586.Google Scholar
Beccaluva, L., Maciotta, G., and Venturelli, G., 1974, Nuovi dati e considerazioni petrogenetiche sulle serie vulcaniche Plio-quaternarie del Montiferro (Sardegna centro-occidentale): Memorie della Società Geologica Italiana, v. 13, p. 539–547.Google Scholar
Bentley, S.J. Sr., and Nittrouer, C.A., 2012, Accumulation and intense bioturbation of bioclastic muds along a carbonate-platform margin: Dry Tortugas, Florida: Marine Geology, v. 315–318, p. 44–57, doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2012.05.002.Google Scholar
Blom, W.M., and Aslop, D.B., 1988, Carbonate mud sedimentation on a temperate shelf: Bass Basin, southeastern Australia: Sedimentary Geology, v. 60, p. 269–280.10.1016/0037-0738(88)90124-8Google Scholar
Bonaviri, C., Fernández, T.V., Fanelli, G., Badalamenti, F., and Gianguzza, P., 2011, Leading role of the sea urchin Arbacia lixula in maintaining the barren state in southwestern Mediterranean: Marine Biology, v. 158, p. 2505–2513, doi:10.1007/s00227-011-1751-2.Google Scholar
Bottero, S., Carboni, S., and Pala, A., 2002, Studio idrogeologico del bacino del Rio di Santa Caterina di Pittinuri (Cuglieri, Sardegna centro-occidentale): Rendiconti Seminario Facoltà Scienze Università Cagliari, v. 72, p. 1–35.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., Jensen, M., and Asgaard, U., 1995, Spatangoid echinoids: Deep-tier trace fossils and chemosymbiosis: Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen, v. 195, p. 25–35.Google Scholar
Bronstein, O., Georgopoulou, E., and Kroh, A., 2017, On the distribution of the invasive long-spined echinoid Diadema setosum and its expansion in the Mediterranean Sea: Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 583, p. 163–178, doi:10.3354/meps12348.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.B., 1966, The biology of Echinocardium cordatum (Echinodermata: Spatangoidea) from different habitats: Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, v. 46, p. 97–114.Google Scholar
Cabanillas-Terán, N., Loor-Andrade, P., Rodríguez-Barreras, R., and Cortés, J., 2016, Trophic ecology of sea urchins in coral-rocky reef systems, Ecuador: PeerJ, v. 4, p. e1578, doi:10.7717/peerj.1578.Google Scholar
Carboni, S., Lecca, L., and Tilocca, G., 2010, Analisi stratigrafico-morfologica e censimento dei processi franosi in atto sulle coste alte nel settore costiero compreso tra Capo San Marco e Capo Marrargiu (Sardegna centro-occidentale): Cagliari, Italy, Università di Cagliari, Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Provincia di Oristano, Assessorato alla Difesa dell'Ambiente, 625 p.Google Scholar
Carmignani, L., Oggiano, G., Barca, S., Conti, P., Salvadori, I., Eltrudis, A., Funedda, A., and Pasci, S., 2001, Geologia della Sardegna: Note illustrative della carta geologica in scala 1:200.000: Memorie Descrittive della Carta Geologica d'Italia, Istituto Poligrafico Zecca dello Stato, Roma, v. 60, 283 p.Google Scholar
Carmignani, L., Oggiano, G., Funedda, A., Conti, P., and Pasci, S., 2015, The geological maps of Sardinia (Italy) at 1:250,000 scale: Journal of Maps, v. 12, p. 826–835, doi:10.1080/17445647.2015.1084544.Google Scholar
Carpenter, R.C., 1985, Sea-urchin mass-mortality: Effects on reef algal abundance, species composition and metabolism and other coral reef herbivores, in Gabrié, C., and Salvat, B., eds., Proceedings of the Fifth International Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti: Moorea, French Polynesia, Antenne Muséum EPHE, v. 4, p. 53–60.Google Scholar
Challis, G.R., 1980, Palaeoecology and taxonomy of mid-Tertiary Maltese echinoids [Ph.D. Thesis]: London, Bedford College, University of London, 401 p.Google Scholar
Chao, S.M., 2000, The irregular sea urchins (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) from Taiwan, with description of six new records: Zoological Studies, v. 39, p. 250–265.Google Scholar
Cherchi, A., and Montandert, L., 1982, Il sistema di rifting Oligo-Miocenico del Mediterraneo occidentale e sue conseguenze paleogeografiche sul Terziario sardo: Memorie della Società Geologica Italiana, v. 24, p. 387–400.Google Scholar
Chesher, R.H., 1966, Redescription of the echinoid species Paraster floridiensis (Spatangoida: Schizasteridae): Bulletin of Marine Science, v. 16, p. 1–19.Google Scholar
Chesher, R.H., 1968, The systematics of sympatric species in West Indian spatangoids: A revision of the genera Brissopsis, Plethotaenia, Paleopneustes and Saviniaster: Studies in Tropical Oceanography, v. 7, p. 1–168.Google Scholar
Chesher, R.H., 1969, Contributions to the biology of Meoma ventricosa (Echinoidea: Spatangoida): Bulletin of Marine Science, v. 19, p. 72–110.Google Scholar
Chesher, R.H., 1972, The status of knowledge of Panamanian echinoids, 1971, with comments on other echinoderms: Bulletin of the Biological Society of Washington, v. 2, 139–158.Google Scholar
Clark, H.L., 1917, Hawaiian and other Pacific Echini: Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College, v. 46, p. 85–283.Google Scholar
Comaschi Caria, I., 1951, Osservazioni paleontologico-stratigrafiche sul Miocene e sul Quaternario marino della zona di Pittinuri a nord-ovest del Golfo di Oristano: Rendiconti Seminario Facoltà di Scienze Università di Cagliari, v. 20, p. 1–16.Google Scholar
Comaschi Caria, I., 1972, Gli echinidi del Miocene della Sardegna: Cagliari, Italy, Stabilimento Tipografico Editoriale Fossataro S.p.A., 96 p.Google Scholar
Como, S., Magni, P., Baroli, M., Casu, D., De Falco, G., and Floris, A., 2008, Comparative analysis of macrofaunal species richness and composition in Posidonia oceanica, Cymodocea nodosa and leaf litter beds: Marine Biology, v. 153, p. 1087–1101, doi:10.1007/s00227-007-0881-z.Google Scholar
Coppard, S.E., and Campbell, A.C., 2005, Distribution and abundance of regular sea urchins on two coral reefs in Fiji: Micronesica, v. 37, p. 249–269.Google Scholar
Coppard, S.E., and Campbell, A.C., 2007, Grazing preferences of diadematid echinoids in Fiji: Aquatic Botany, v. 86, p. 204–212, doi:10.1016/j.aquabot.2006.10.005.Google Scholar
Cordeiro, C.A.M.M., Harborne, A.R., and Ferreira, C.E.L., 2014, Patterns of distribution and composition of sea urchin assemblages on Brazilian subtropical rocky reefs: Marine Biology, v. 161, p. 2221–2232, doi:10.1007/s00227-014-2500-0.Google Scholar
Cotteau, G., 1895, Description des Échinides recueillis par M. Lovisato dans le Miocène de la Sardaigne: Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, v. 13, p. 5–56.Google Scholar
De Ridder, C., 1982, Feeding and some aspects of the gut structure in the spatangoid echinoid, Echinocardium cordatum (Pennant), in Lawrence, J.M., ed., Proceedings of the Fourth Intenational Echinoderm Conference, Tampa, 1981: Rotterdam, A.A. Balkema, p. 5–9.Google Scholar
De Ridder, C., and Lawrence, J.M., 1982, Food and feeding mechanisms: Echinoidea, in Jangoux, M., and Lawrence, J.M., eds., Echinoderm Nutrition: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, A.A. Balkema, p. 499–519.Google Scholar
Degraer, S., Wittoeck, J., Appeltans, W., Cooreman, K., Deprez, T., Hillewaert, H., Hostens, K., Mees, J., Vanden Berghe, E., and Vincx, M., 2006, The Macrobenthos Atlas of the Belgian Part of the North Sea: Brussels, Belgian Science Policy, 164 p.Google Scholar
Desor, E., 1855–1858, Synopsis des Échinides Fossiles: Paris, Reinwald, 490 p.Google Scholar
Despalatović, M., Grubelić, I., Piccinetti, C., Cvitović, I., Antolić, B., Žuljević, A., and Nikolić, V., 2009, Distribution of echinoderms on continental shelf in open waters of the northern and middle Adriatic Sea: Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, v. 89, p. 585–591, DOI :10.1017/s002531540900304X.Google Scholar
Donovan, S.K., Renema, W., Pinnington, C.A., and Veltkamp, C.J., 2011, Significance of diadematid echinoid ossicles in micropalaeontological samples, Miocene-Pliocene of Indonesia: Alcheringa, v. 36, p. 99–105, doi :10.1080/03115518.2011.584492.Google Scholar
Düben, M.W. von, and Koren, J., 1846, Öfversigt af Skandinaviens Echinodermer: Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 1844, p. 229–328, available online at http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015039478022;view=1up;seq=235 (accessed February 2019).Google Scholar
Duineveld, C.A., and Jenness, M.I., 1984, Differences in growth rates of the sea urchin Echinocardium cordatum as estimated by the parameter ω of the von Bertalanffy equation applied to skeletal rings: Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 19, p. 65–72.Google Scholar
Durham, J.W., 1966, Clypeasteroids, in Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part U, Echinodermata 3: Boulder, Colorado, and Lawrence, Kansas, Geological society of America (and University of Kansas Press), p. U450–U491.Google Scholar
Dworschak, P.C., 2000, Global diversity in the Thalassinidea (Decapoda): Journal of Crustacean Biology, v. 20, p. 238–245, doi:10.1163/1937240X-90000025.Google Scholar
Elmasry, E., Omar, H.A., Abdel Razek, F.A., and El-Magd, M.A., 2013, Preliminary studies on habitat and diversity of some sea urchin species (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) on the southern Levantine basin of Egypt: Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research, v. 39, p. 303–311, doi:10.1016/j.ejar.2013.12.009.Google Scholar
Embry, A.F., and Klovan, J.S., 1971, A Late Devonian reef tract on northeastern Banks Island N.W.T.: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, v. 4, p. 730–781.Google Scholar
Ernst, G., Hähnel, W., and Seibertz, E., 1973, Aktuopaläontologie und Merkmalsvariabilität bei mediterranen Echiniden und Rückschlüsse auf die Ökologie und Artumgrenzung fossiler Formen: Paläontologische Zeitschrift, v. 47, p. 188–216.Google Scholar
Facenna, C., Speranza, F., D'Ajello Caracciolo, F., Mattei, M., and Oggiano, G., 2002, Extensional tectonics on Sardinia (Italy): Insights into the arc-back-arc transitional regime: Tectonophysics, v. 356, p. 213–232, doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(02)00287-1.Google Scholar
Ferber, I., and Lawrence, J.M., 1976, Distribution, substratum and burrowing behaviour of Lovenia elongata (Gray) (Echinoidea: Spatangoida) in the Gulf of Elat (‘Aqaba), Red Sea: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, v. 22, p. 207–225.Google Scholar
Forbes, E.A., 1841, A history of British starfishes and other animals of the class Echinodermata: London, John van Voorst, 267 p.Google Scholar
Forbes, E.A., 1844, On the Radiata of the eastern Mediterranean: Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, v. 1, p. 184–186.Google Scholar
Foster, M. S., 2001, Rhodoliths: Between rocks and soft places: Journal of Phycology, v. 37, p. 659–667, doi:10.1046/j.1529-8817.2001.00195.x.Google Scholar
Foster, M.S., Amado-Filho, G.M., Kamenos, N.A., Riosmena-Rodriguez, R., and Steller, D.L., 2013, Rhodoliths and rhodolith beds, in Lang, M.A., Marinelli, R.L., Roberts, S.J., and Taylor, P.R., eds., Research and Discoveries: The Revolution of Science Through SCUBA: Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences, v. 39, p. 143–155.Google Scholar
Fourtau, R., 1920, Catalogue des Invertebres Fossiles de l'Egypte, Terrains Tertiaires, 2 Partie, Echinodermes Neogenes: Geological Survey of Egypt, Palaeontology Series 4: Cairo, Egypt, Government Press, 101 p.Google Scholar
Funedda, A., Oggiano, G., and Pasci, S., 2000, The Logudoro Basin: A key area for the Tertiary tectono-sedimentary evolution of North Sardinia: Bollettino della Società Geologica Italiana, v. 119, p. 31–38.Google Scholar
Funedda, A., Oggiano, G., and Pascucci, V., 2003, I depositi Miocenici della Sardegna settentrionale: Il bacino del Logudoro, in Pascucci, V., ed., Atti del Convegno GEOSED 2003: Sassari, Italy, Editoria e Stampa, p. 381–414.Google Scholar
Gagnon, P., Matheson, K., and Stapleton, M., 2012, Variation in rhodolith morphology and biogenic potential of newly discovered rhodolith beds in Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada): Botanica Marina, v. 55, p. 85–99, doi:10.1515/bot-2011-0064.Google Scholar
Gale, A.S., and Smith, A.B., 1982, The palaeobiology of the Cretaceous irregular echinoids Infulaster and Hagenowia: Paleontology, v. 25, p. 11–42.Google Scholar
Gibbs, P.E., 1963, The functional morphology and ecology of the spatangoid genus Brisaster Gray [M.S. thesis]: Vancouver, University of British Columbia, 51 p.Google Scholar
Gingras, M.K., Pemberton, S.G., Dashtgard, S.E., and Dafoe, L., 2008, How fast do marine invertebrates burrow?: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 270, p. 280–286, doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.07.015.Google Scholar
Gondim, A.I., Dias, T.L.P., and Christoffersen, M.L., 2013, Diadema ascensionis Mortensen, 1909 (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) is not restriceted to oceanic islands: Evidence from morphological data: Brazilian Journal of Biology, v. 73, p. 431–435, doi:10.1590/S1519-69842013000200027.Google Scholar
Gondim, A.I., Dias, T.L.P., Duarte, R.C.S., Riul, P., Lacouth, P., and Christoffersen, M.L., 2014, Filling a knowledge gap on the biodiversity of rhodolith-associated Echinodermata from northeastern Brazil: Tropical Conservation Science, v. 7, p. 87–99, doi:10.1177/194008291400700112.Google Scholar
Gray, J.E., 1825, An attempt to divide the Echinida, or sea eggs, into natural families: Annals of Philosophy, new ser., v. 10, p. 423–431.Google Scholar
Gray, J.E., 1845, Description of two new invertebrated animals from Australia, in Eyre, E. J., ed., Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central Australia and Overland from Adelaide to King Georg's Sound in 1840–41: London, T. & W. Boone, v., 1, p. 435–436.Google Scholar
Gray, J.E., 1851, Descriptions of some new genera and species of Spatangidae in the British Museum: The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, v. 7, p. 130–134.Google Scholar
Gray, J.E., 1855, Catalogue of the Recent Echinida, or Sea Eggs, in the Collection of the British Museum, Part 1, Echinida irregularia 1: London, Woodfall and Kinder, 69 p.Google Scholar
Greenstein, B.J., 1989, Mass mortality of the West-Indian echinoid Diadema antillarum (Echinodermata: Echinoidea): A natural experiment in taphonomy: Palaios, v. 4, p. 487–492.Google Scholar
Greenstein, B.J., 1991, An integrated study of echinoid taphonomy: Predictions for the fossil record of four echinoid Families: Palaios, v. 6, p. 519–540.Google Scholar
Greenstein, B.J., 1992, Taphonomic bias and the evolutionary history of the family Cidaridae (Echinodermata: Echinoidea): Paleobiology, v. 18, p. 50–79.Google Scholar
Greenstein, B.J., 1993a, The effect of life habit on the preservation potential of echinoids, in White, B.N., ed., Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on the Geology of the Bahamas: San Salvador, Bahamas, Bahamian Field Station, p. 55–74.Google Scholar
Greenstein, B.J., 1993b, Is the fossil record of regular echinoids so poor?: A comparison of living and subfossil assemblages: Palaios, v. 8, p. 587–601.Google Scholar
Greenstein, B.J., 1995, The effects of life habit and test microstructure on the preservation potential of echinoids in Graham's Harbour, San Salvador Island, Bahamas: Geological Society of America, Special Paper, v. 300, p. 177–188.Google Scholar
Grubelic, I., 1998, Presence of the species Genocidaris maculata Agassiz, 1869, Echinoidea, Echinodermata in the Adriatic Sea: Periodicum Biologorum, v. 100, p. 39–42.Google Scholar
Grun, T.B., Sievers, D., and Nebelsick, J.H., 2014, Drilling predation on the clypeasteroid echinoid Echinocyamus pusillus from the Mediterranean Sea (Giglio, Italy): Historical Biology, v. 26, p. 745–757, doi:10.1080/08912963.2013.841683.Google Scholar
Guidetti, P., and Mori, M., 2005, Morpho-functional defences of Mediterranean sea urchins, Paracentrotus lividus and Arbacia lixula, against fish predators: Marine Biology, v. 147, p. 797–802, doi:10.1007/s00227-005-1611-z.Google Scholar
Guillou, M., and Lumingas, L.J.L., 1998, The reproductive cycle of the ‘blunt’ sea urchin: Aquaculture International, v. 6, p. 147–160.Google Scholar
Guillou, M., and Michel, C., 1993, Reproduction and growth of Sphaerechinus granularis (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) in southern Brittany: Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, v. 73, p. 179–192.Google Scholar
Harmelin, J.G., and Duval, C., 1983, Localisation et dissémination des jeunes de l'oursin Sphaerechinus granularis (Lamarck) en Méditerranée: Rapports et Procès-Verbaux des Réunions: Commission Internationale pour l'Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Mediterranée, Monaco, v. 28, p. 267–269.Google Scholar
Harrold, C., and Pearse, J.S., 1987, The ecological role of echinoderms in kelp forests, in Jangoux, M., and Lawrence, J.M., eds., Echinoderm Studies, Volume 2: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, A.A. Balkema, p. 137–233.Google Scholar
Hendler, G., Miller, J.E., Pawson, D.L., and Kier, P.M., 1995, Sea Stars, Sea Urchins, and Allies: Echinoderms of Florida and the Caribbean: Washington DC, Smithsonian Institution Press, 390 p.Google Scholar
Hernández, J.C., Clemente, S., Tuya, F., Pérez-Ruzafa, A., Sangil, C., Moro-Abad, L., and Bacallado-Aránega, J.J., 2013, Echinoderms of the Canary Islands, Spain, in Alvarado, J.J., and Solís-Marín, F.A., eds., Echinoderm Research and Diversity in Latin America: Berlin, Springer, p. 471–510.Google Scholar
Hernandez-Kantun, J.J., Hall-Spencer, J.M., Grall, J., Adey, W., Rindi, F., Maggs, C.A., Bárbara, I., and Peña, V., 2017, North Atlantic rhodolith beds, in Riosmena-Rodríguez, R., Aguirre, J., and Nelson, W., eds., Rhodolith/Maërl Beds: A Global Perspective: Coastal Research Library Book 15 : Cham, Springer International Publishing, p. 265–279.Google Scholar
Hollertz, K., and Duchêne, J.-C., 2001, Burrowing behaviour and sediment reworking in the heart urchin Brissopsis lyrifera Forbes (Spatangoida): Marine Biology, v. 139, p. 951–957, doi :10.1007/s002270100629.Google Scholar
Hollertz, K., Sköld, M., and Rosenberg, R., 1998, Interactions between two deposit feeding echinoderms: The spatangoid Brissopsis lyrifera (Forbes) and the ophiuroid Amphiura chiajei (Forbes): Hydrobiologia, v. 376, p. 287–295.Google Scholar
Hopkins, T.S., 1988, A review of the distribution and proposed morphological groupings of extant species of the genus Clypeaster in the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, in Burke, R.D., Mladenov, P.V., Lambert, P., and Parseley, R.L., eds., Echinoderm Biology: Proceedings of the Sixth International Echinoderm Conference: Rotterdam, Balkema, p. 337–345.Google Scholar
Horta, P.A., Riul, P., Amado Filho, G.M., Gurgel, C.F.D., Berchez, F., Nunes, J.M.C., Scherner, F., Pereira, S., Lotufo, T., Peres, L., Sissini, M., Bastos, E.O., Rosa, J., Munoz, P., Martins, C., Gouvêa, L., Carvalho, V., Bergstrom, E., Schubert, N., Bahia, R.G., Rodrigues, A.C., Rörig, L., Barufi, J.B., and Figueiredo, M., 2016, Rhodoliths in Brazil: Current knowledge and potential impacts of climate change: Brazilian Journal of Oceanography, v. 64, p. 117–136.Google Scholar
Jacob, U., Terpstra, S., and Brey, T., 2003, High-Antarctic regular sea urchins—The role of depth and feeding in niche separation: Polar Biology, v. 26, p. 99–104, doi:10.1007/s00300-002-0453-0.Google Scholar
James, D.B., and Pearse, J.S., 1969, Echinoderms from the Gulf of Suez and the northern Red Sea: Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India, v. 11, p. 78–12.Google Scholar
James, D.W., 2000, Diet, movement, and covering behavior of the sea urchin Toxopneustes roseus in rhodolith beds in the Gulf of California, México: Marine Biology, v. 137, p. 913–923, doi:10.1007/s002270000423.Google Scholar
Kamenos, N.A., Moore, P.G., and Hall-Spencer, J.M., 2004, Nursery-area function of maerl grounds for juvenile queen scallops Aequipecten opercularis and other invertebrates: Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 274, p. 183–189, doi:10.3354/meps274183.Google Scholar
Kanazawa, K., 1992, Adaptation of test shape for burrowing and locomotion in spatangoid echinoids: Palaeontology, v. 35, p. 733–750.Google Scholar
Kehas, A.J., Theoharides, K.A., and Gilbert, J.J., 2005, Effect of sunlight intensity and albinism on the covering response of the Caribbean sea urchin Tripneustes ventricosus: Marine Biology, v. 146, p. 1111–1117, doi:10.1007/s00227-004-1514-4.Google Scholar
Keller, B.D., 1983, Coexistence of sea urchins in seagrass meadows: An experimental analysis of competition and predation: Ecology, v. 64, p. 1581–1588.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S.M., and Baumiller, T., 1990, Experimental disintegration of regular echinoids: Roles of temperature, oxygen and decay thresholds: Paleobiology, v. 16, p. 247–271.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S.M., and Holland, S.M., 1991, Field description of coarse bioclastic fabric: Palaios, v. 6, p. 426–434.Google Scholar
Kier, P.M., 1975, The echinoids of Carrie Bow Cay, Belize: Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, v. 206, p. 1–45.Google Scholar
Kier, P.M., 1977, The poor fossil record of the regular echinoid: Paleobiology, v. 3, p. 168–174.Google Scholar
Kier, P.M., and Grant, R.E., 1965, Echinoid distribution and habits: Key Largo Coral Reef Preserve, Florida: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, v. 149, p. 1–68.Google Scholar
Koehler, R., 1927, Les Echinodermes des mers d'Europe, Volume 2: Paris, Gaston Doin et Cie, 406 p.Google Scholar
Koike, I., Mukai, H., and Nojima, S., 1987, The role of the sea urchin, Tripneustes gratilla (Linnaeus), in decomposition and nutrient cycling in a tropical seagrass bed: Ecological Research, v. 2, p. 19–29.Google Scholar
Koukouras, A., Sinis, A.I., Bobori, D., Savas, K., and Miltiadis-Spyridon, K., 2007, The echinoderm (Deuterostomia) fauna of the Aegean Sea, and comparison with those of the neighbouring seas: Journal of Biological Research, v. 7, p. 67–92.Google Scholar
Kroh, A., 2005, Catalogus Fossilium Austriae, Band 2, Echinoidea Neogenica: Vienna, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 210 p.Google Scholar
Kroh, A., and Nebelsick, J.H., 2003, Echinoid assemblages as a tool for palaeoenvironmental reconstruction—An example from the early Miocene of Egypt: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 201, p. 157–177, doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(03)00610-2.Google Scholar
Kroh, A., and Smith, A.B., 2010, The phylogeny and classification of post-Palaeozoic echinoids: Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, v. 8, p. 147–212, doi:10.1080/14772011003603556.Google Scholar
Labbé-Bellas, R., Cordeiro, C.A.M.M., Floeter, S.R., and Segal, B., 2016, Sea urchin abundance and habitat relationships in different Brazilian reef types: Regional Studies in Marine Science, v. 8, p. 33–40, doi:10.1016/j.rsma.2016.09.004.Google Scholar
Lamarck, J.B.P.M. de, 1801, Système des Animaux sans Vertèbres, ou Tableau Général des Classes, des Ordres et des Genres des ces Animaux: Paris, Deterville, 432 p.Google Scholar
Lamarck, J.B.P.M. de, 1816, Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertèbres, Présentant les Caractères Généraux et Particuliers de ces Animaux, leur Distribution, leur Classes, leurs Familles, leurs Generes, et le Citation des Principales Espèces qui s'y Rapportent; Précédée d'une Introduction Offrant la Détermination des Caractères Essentiells de l'Animal, sa Distinction du Végétal et des Autres Corps Naturels, Enfin, l'Exposition des Principes Fondamentaux de la Zoologie, Volume 3: Paris, Verdière, 586 p.Google Scholar
Lambert, J., 1907, Description des échinides fossiles des terrains Miocéniques de la Sardaigne: Mémoires de la Société Paléontologique Suisse, v. 34, p. 1–72.Google Scholar
Lambert, J., and Thiéry, P., 1909–1925, Essai de Nomenclature Raisonnée des Echinides: Chaumont, France, Libraire Septime Ferriere, 607 pp.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.M., 1975, On the relationship between marine plants and sea-urchins: Oceanography and Marine Biology, An Annual Review, v. 13, p. 213–286.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.M., and Agatsuma, Y., 2007, The ecology of Tripneustes, in Lawrence, J.M., ed., Edible Sea Urchins: Biology and Ecology: Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, p. 499–520.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.M., and Agatsuma, Y., 2013, Tripneustes, in Lawrence, J.M., ed., Sea Urchins: Biology and Ecology: Croydon, UK, Academic Press, p. 491–508.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.M., and Ferber, I., 1971, Substrate particle size and the occurrence of Lovenia elongata (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) at Taba, Gulf of Elat (Red Sea): Israel Journal of Zoology v. 20, p. 131–138.Google Scholar
Leske, N.G., 1778, Jacobi Theodori Klein Naturalis Dispositio Echinodermatum, Edita et Descriptionibus Novisque Inventis et Synonomis Auctorem Aucta, Addimenta ad I.T. Klein Naturalem Dispositionem Echinodermatum: Leipzig, Germany, G.E. Beer, 278 p.Google Scholar
Lessios, H.A., 2005, Echinoids of the Pacific waters of Panama: Status of knowledge and new records: Revista de Biología Tropical, v. 53, p. 147–170.Google Scholar
Lessios, H.A., Kane, J., and Robertson, D.R., 2003, Phylogeography of the pantropical sea urchin Tripneustes: Contrasting patterns of population structure between oceans: Evolution, v. 57, p. 2026–2036, doi:10.1554/02-681.Google Scholar
Lewis, J.B., 1964, Feeding and digestion in the tropical sea urchin Diadema antillarum Philippi: Canadian Journal of Zoology, v. 42, p. 549–557.Google Scholar
Leymerie, A., 1842, Suite de mémoire sur le terrain Crétacé du département de l'Aube: Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, v. 5, p. 1–34.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C., 1758, Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae (tenth edition), Volume 1, Regnum Animale: Stockholm, Laurentii Salvii, 824 p.Google Scholar
Littler, M.M., Littler, D.S., and Hanisak, M.D., 1991, Deep-water rhodolith distribution, productivity, and growth history at sites of formation and subsequent degradation: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, v. 150, p. 163–182.Google Scholar
Lohrer, A.M., Thrush, S.F., Hunt, L., Hancock, N., and Lundquist, C., 2005, Rapid reworking of subtidal sediments by burrowing spatangoid urchins: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, v. 321, p. 155–169, doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2005.02.002.Google Scholar
Lokier, S.W., and Al Junaibi, M., 2016, The petrographic description of carbonate facies: Are we all speaking the same language?: Sedimentology, v. 63, p. 1843–1885, doi:10.1111/sed.12293.Google Scholar
Lyimo, T.J., Mamboya, F., Hamisi, M., and Lugomela, C., 2011, Food preference of the sea urchin Tripneustes gratilla (Linnaeus, 1758) in tropical seagrass habitats at Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment, v. 3, p. 415–423.Google Scholar
Maciá, S., and Robinson, M.P., 2009, Growth rates of the tropical sea urchins Tripneustes ventricosus and Lytechinus variegatus based on natural recruitment events: Caribbean Journal of Science, v. 45, p. 64–68, doi:10.18475/cjos.v45i1.a9.Google Scholar
Mägdefrau, K., 1932, Über einige Bohrgänge aus dem Unteren Muschelkalk von Jena: Paläontologische Zeitschrift, v. 14, p. 150–160.Google Scholar
Mancosu, A., and Nebelsick, J.H., 2013, Multiple routes to mass accumulations of clypeasteroid echinoids: A comparative analysis of Miocene echinoid beds of Sardinia: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 374, p. 173–186, doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.01.015.Google Scholar
Mancosu, A., and Nebelsick, J.H., 2015, The origin and paleoecology of clypeasteroid assemblages from different shelf setting of the Miocene of Sardinia, Italy: Palaios, v. 30, p. 273–387, doi:10.2110/palo.2014.087.Google Scholar
Mancosu, A., and Nebelsick, J.H., 2016, Echinoid assemblages from the early Miocene of Funtanazza (Sardinia): A tool for reconstructing depositional environments along a shelf gradient: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 454, p. 139–160, doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2016.03.024.Google Scholar
Mancosu, A., and Nebelsick, J.H., 2017a, Ecomorphological and taphonomic gradient of clypeasteroid-dominated echinoid assemblages along a mixed siliciclastic-carbonate shelf from the early Miocene of northern Sardinia, Italy: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, v. 62, p. 627–646, doi:10.4202/app.00357.2017.Google Scholar
Mancosu, A., and Nebelsick, J.H., 2017b, Palaeoecology and taphonomy of spatangoid-dominated echinoid assemblages: A case study from the early-middle Miocene of Sardinia, Italy: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 466, p. 334–352, doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2016.11.053.Google Scholar
Mancosu, A., Nebelsick, J.H., Kroh, A., and Pillola, G.L., 2015, The origin of echinoid shell beds in siliciclastic shelf environments: Three examples from the Miocene of Sardinia, Italy: Lethaia, v. 48, p. 83–99, doi:10.1111/let.12090.Google Scholar
Martínez-Pita, I., Sánchez-España, A.I., and García, F.J., 2008, Gonadal growth and reproduction in the sea urchin Sphaerechinus granularis (Lamarck, 1816) (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) in southern Spain: Scientia Marina, v. 72, p. 603–611.Google Scholar
Mazzei, R., and Oggiano, G., 1990, Messa in evidenza di due cicli sedimentari nel Miocene dell'area di Florinas (Sardegna Settentrionale): Atti della Società Toscana di Scienze Naturali, Memorie, ser. A, v. 97, p. 119–147.Google Scholar
Mazzetti, G., 1893, Catalogo degli echini del Mar Rosso: Atti della Società dei Naturalisti e Matematici di Modena, v. 12, p. 238–243.Google Scholar
McClanahan, T.R., 1988, Coexistence in a sea urchin guild and its implications to coral reef diversity and degradation: Oecologia, v. 77, p. 210–218.Google Scholar
McClanahan, T.R., 1995, Fish predators and scavengers of the sea urchin Echinometra mathaei in Kenyan coral-reef marine parks: Environmental Biology of Fishes, v. 43, p. 187–193.Google Scholar
McClanahan, T.R., 1998, Predation and the distribution and abundance of tropical sea urchin populations: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, v. 221, p. 231–255.Google Scholar
Mighela, P., Muntoni, A., Assorgia, A., Porcu, A., and Spano, C., 1997, Le successioni sedimentarie mioceniche affioranti nel Bosano-Planargia-Montiferru (Sardegna Centro-Occidentale), in Assorgia, A., Barca, S., and Spano, C., eds., Convegno-escursione: La ‘Fossa sarda’ Nell'Ambito Dell'Evoluzione Geodinamica Cenozoica del Mediterraneo Occidentale, Libro Guida e Riassunti, Villanovaforru, Italy, 19–22 June, p. 146.Google Scholar
Miskelly, A., 2002, Sea Urchins of Australia and the Indopacific: Sydney, Australia, Capricornica Publications, 179 p.Google Scholar
Mörch, O.A.L., 1852, Catalogus Conchyliorum quae Reliquit D. Alphonso d'Aguirra & Gadea, Comes de Yoldi 1, Cephalophora: Copenhagen, L. Klein, 170 p.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T., 1907, The Danish Ingolf-Expedition 1895–1896, Volume 4, Number 2, Echinoidea, Part 2: Copenhagen, Bianco Luno, 200 p.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T., 1909, Die Echinoiden der Deutschen Südpolar Expedition 1901–1903, in von Drygalski, E., ed., Deutsche Südpolar-Expedition 1901–1903, v. 11, no. 1, 114 p.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T., 1940, Monograph of the Echinoidea, III, 1, Aulodonta: Copenhagen, C.A. Reitzel, 370 p.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T., 1943, A Monograph of the Echinoidea, III, 2, Camaradonta, I. Orthopsidae, Glyphocyphidae, Temnopleuridae and Toxopneustidae: Copenhagen, C.A. Reitzel, 553 p.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T., 1948, A Monograph of the Echinoidea, IV, 2, Clypeastroida, Clypeastridae, Arachnoididae, Fibulariidae, Langanidae, and Scutellidae: Copenhagen, C.A. Reitzel, 471 p.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T., 1950, New Echinoidea (Spatangoida): Preliminary notice: Videnskabelige Meddelelsar Dansk Naturhistoriske Forening i København, v. 112, p. 157–163.Google Scholar
Mortensen, T., 1951, A Monograph of the Echinoidea, V, 2, Spatangoida, II, Amphisternata, II, Spatangidæ, Loveniidæ, Pericosmidæ, Schizasteridæ, Brissidæ: Copenhagen, C.A. Reitzel, 593 p.Google Scholar
Müller, O.F., 1776, Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus: Seu Animalium Daniae et Norvegiae Indigenarum Characteres, Nomina, et Synonyma Imprimis Popularium: Copenhagen, Typiis Hallageriis, 274 p.Google Scholar
Muthiga, N.A., and McClanahan, T.R., 2007, Ecology of Diadema, in Lawrence, J.M., ed., Edible Sea Urchins: Biology and Ecology: Amsterdam, Elsevier Science, p. 205–225.Google Scholar
Nader, M.R., and El Indary, S., 2011, First record of Diadema setosum (Leske, 1778) (Echinodermata, Echinoidea, Diadematidae) from Lebanon, eastern Mediterranean: Aquatic Invasion, v. 6, supplement no. 1, p. 23–25, doi:10.3391/ai.2011.6.S1.005.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Y., 2001, Autoecology of the heart urchin, Echinocardium cordatum, in the muddy sediment of the Seto Island Sea, Japan: Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, v. 81, p. 289–297.Google Scholar
Nateghi Shahrokni, S.A., Fatemi, S.M.R., Nabavi, S.M.B., and Vosoughi, G.H., 2016, Contribution to the knowledge of echinoid fauna from Persian Gulf (Echinodermata: Echinoidea): Iranian Journal of Animal Biosystematics, v. 12, p. 37–50, doi:10.22067/ijab.v12i1.47391.Google Scholar
Nebelsick, J.H., 1992a, Echinoid distribution by fragment identification in the Northern Bay of Safaga, Red Sea, Egypt: Palaios, v. 7, p. 316–328.Google Scholar
Nebelsick, J.H., 1992b, The Northern Bay of Safaga (Red Sea, Egypt): An actuopalaeontological approach, III, Distribution of echinoids: Beiträge zur Paläontologie von Österreich, v. 17, p. 5–79.Google Scholar
Nebelsick, J.H., 1996, Biodiversity of shallow-water Red Sea echinoids: Implications for the fossil record: Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, v. 76, p. 185–194.Google Scholar
Nebelsick, J.H., and Kowalewski, M., 1999, Drilling predation on Recent clypeasteroid echinoids from the Red Sea: Palaios, v. 14, p. 127–144.Google Scholar
Néraudeau, D., Goubert, E., Lacour, J.M., and Rouchy, J.M., 2001, Changing biodiversity of Mediterranean irregular echinoids from the Messinian to present-day: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 175, p. 43–60, doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(01)00385-6.Google Scholar
Nichols, D., 1959, Changes in the chalk heart-urchin Micraster interpreted in relation to living forms: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, ser. B, v. 242, p. 347–437.Google Scholar
Norman, A.M., 1869, Last report on dredging among the Shetland Isles, Part 2: On the Crustacea, Tunicata, Polyzoa, Echinodermata, Actinozoa, Hydrozoa, and Porifera: Report of the Thirty-Eighth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Norwich, August 1868: London, v. 38, p. 247–336.Google Scholar
Palacín, C., Turon, X., Ballesteros, M., Giribert, G., and López, S., 1998, Stock evaluation of three littoral echinoid species on the Catalan coast (north-western Mediterranean): Marine Ecology, v. 19, p. 163–177.Google Scholar
Pascelli, C., Riul, P., Riosmena-Rodrìguez, R., Scherner, F., Nunes, M., Hall-Spencer, J.M., Oliveira, E.C., and Horta, P., 2013, Seasonal and depth-driven changes in rhodolith bed structure and associated macroalgae off Arvoredo Island (southeastern Brazil): Aquatic Botany, v. 111, p. 62–65, doi:10.1016/j.aquabot.2013.05.009.Google Scholar
Pearse, J.S., 1970, Reproductive periodicities of Indo-Pacific invertebrates in the Gulf of Suez, III, The echinoid Diadema Setosum (Leske): Bulletin of Marine Science, v. 20, p. 697–720.Google Scholar
Pennant, T., 1777, British Zoology, Volume 4, Crustacea, Mollusca, Testacea: London, Benjamin White, 154 p.Google Scholar
Pérès, J.M., and Picard, J., 1964, Nouveau manuel de bionomie bentique de la Mer Méditerranèe: Recueil des Travaux de la Station Marine d'Endoume, v. 31, p. 5–137.Google Scholar
Peters, W.K.H., 1855, Über die an der Küste von Mossambique beobachteten Seeigel und insbesondere über die Gruppe von Diademen: Abhandlungen der Koeniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, v. 1854, p. 101–119.Google Scholar
Petović, S., and Krpo-Ćetković, J., 2016, How depth and substratum type affect diversity and distribution patterns of echinoderms on the continental shelf in the south-eastern Adriatic Sea?: Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, v. 68, p. 89–96.Google Scholar
Philippi, R.A., 1845, Beschreibung einiger neuer Echinodermen nebst kritischen Bemerckungen über einige weniger bekannte Arten: Archiv für Naturgeschichte, v. 11, p. 344–359.Google Scholar
Pisera, A., 1994, Echinoderms of the Mójcza Limestone, in Dzik, J., Olempska, E., and Pisera, A, Ordovician Carbonate Platform Ecosystem of the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland: Palaeontologia Polonica, v. 53, p. 283–307.Google Scholar
Pomel, A., 1869, Revue des Échinodermes et leur Classification pour Servir d'Introduction à l’Étude des Fossiles: Paris, C. Deyrolle, 67 p.Google Scholar
Pomel, A., 1883, Classification méthodique et genera des échinides vivante et fossiles [Ph.D. Thèsis]: Paris, Académie de Paris, 131 p.Google Scholar
Privitera, D., Noli, M., Falugi, C., and Chiantore, M., 2008, Inter- and intraspecific competition between Paracentrotus lividus and Arbacia lixula in resource-limited barren areas: Journal of Sea Research, v. 60, p. 184–192, doi:10.1016/j.seares.2008.07.001.Google Scholar
Pusch, G.G., 1837, Polens Paläontologie oder Abbildung und Beschreibung der vorzüglichsten und den noch unbeschriebenen Petrefakten aus den Gebirgsformationen in Polen, Vollhynienund den Karpaten: Stuttgart, Germany, E. Schweizerbart, 218 p.Google Scholar
Randall, J.E., Schroeder, R.E., and Starck, W.A., 1964, Notes on the biology of the echinoid Diadema antillarum: Caribbean Journal of Science, v. 4, p. 421–433.Google Scholar
Regalado, J.M., Campos, W.L., and Santillan, A.S., 2010, Population biology of Tripneustes gratilla (Linnaeus) (Echinodermata) in seagrass beds of southern Guimaras, Philippines: Science Diliman, v. 22, p. 41–49.Google Scholar
Régis, M.B., 1979, Particularités microstructurales du squelette de Paracentrotus lividus et Arbacia lixula: Rapports avec l’écologie et l’éthologie de ces échinoïdes: Marine Biology, v. 54, p. 373–382.Google Scholar
Riedl, R., 1983, Fauna und Flora des Mittelmeeres: Berlin, Paul Parey, 836 p.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Barreras, R., 2014, The shallow-water echinoids (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) of Cuba: Marine Biodiversity Records, v. 7, p. 1–8, doi:10.1017/S175526721400092X.Google Scholar
Röding, P.F., 1798, Museum Boltenianum, Sive Catalogus Cimeliorum e Tribus Regnis Naturae, Quae Olim Collegerat Joa. Fried. Bolten, M.D.p.d. per XL: Annos Proto Physicus Hamburgensis, Pars Secunda, Continens Conchylia Sive Testacea Univalvia, Bivalvia et Multivalvia: Hamburg, J.C. Trappius, 199 p.Google Scholar
Rowe, F.W.E., and Gates, J., 1995, Echinodermata, in Wells, A., ed., Zoological Catalogue of Australia, Volume 33: Melbourne, Australia, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), p. 294–295.Google Scholar
Saitoh, M., and Kanazawa, K., 2012, Adaptive morphology for living in shallow water environments in spatangoid echinoids: Zoosymposia, v. 7, p. 255–265, doi:10.11646/zoosymposia.7.1.24.Google Scholar
Sala, E., and Zabala, M., 1996, Fish predation and the structure of the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus populations in the NW Mediterranean: Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 140, p. 71–81.Google Scholar
Sartoretto, S., and Francour, P., 1997, Quantification of bioerosion of Sphaerechinus granularis on coralligene concretions of the western Mediterranean: Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, v. 77, p. 565–568.Google Scholar
Schin, P.K.S., and Thompson, G.B., 1982, Spatial distribution of the infaunal benthos of Hong Kong: Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 10, p. 37–47.Google Scholar
Schinner, G.O., 1993, Burrowing behavior, substrate preference, and distribution of Schizaster canaliferus (Echinoidea: Spatangoida) in the northern Adriatic Sea: Marine Ecology, v. 14, p. 129–145.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.P., Harzhauser, M., and Kroh, A., 2001, Hypoxic events on a middle Miocene carbonate platform of the Central Paratethys (Austria, Badenian, 14 Ma): Annales Naturhistorischen Museum Wien, v. 102A, p. 1–50.Google Scholar
Schultz, H., 2005, Sea Urchins: Hemdingen, Germany, Heinke and Peter Schultz Partner, 484 p.Google Scholar
Sciberras, M., Rizzo, M., Mifsud, J.R., Camilleri, K., Borg, J.A., Lanfranco, E., and Schembri, P.J., 2009, Habitat structure and biological characteristic of a maerl bed off the northeastern coast of the Maltese Island (central Mediterranean): Marine Biodiversity, v. 39, p. 251–264, doi:10.1007/s12526-009-0017-4.Google Scholar
Scoffin, T.P., 1988, The environments of production and deposition of calcareous sediments on the shelf west of Scotland: Sedimentary Geology, v. 60, p. 107–124.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A., 1979, Constructional morphology of sand dollars: Palaeobiology, v. 5, p. 191–221.Google Scholar
Serafy, D.K., 1979, Echinoids (Echinodermata: Echinoidea): Memoirs of the Hourglass Cruises, v. 5, p. 1–120.Google Scholar
Seymour, S., Paul, N.A., Dworjanyn, S.A., and de Nys, R., 2013, Feeding preference and performance in the tropical sea urchin Tripneustes gratilla: Aquaculture, v. 400–401, p. 6–13, doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.02.030.Google Scholar
Sievers, D., and Nebelsick, J.H., 2018, Fish predation on a Mediterranean echinoid: Identification and preservation potential: Palaios, v. 33, p. 47–54, doi:10.2110/palo.2017.041.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., 1978, A functional classification of the coronal pores of regular echinoids: Palaeontology, v. 21, p. 81–84.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., 1980a, The structure and arrangement of echinoid tubercles: Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London B, v. 289, p. 1–54.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., 1980b, The structure, function, and evolution of tube feet and ambulacral pores in irregular echinoids: Palaeontology, v. 23, p. 39–83.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., 1984, Echinoid Palaeobiology: London, George Allen and Unwin Limited, 199 p.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., and Gale, A.S., 2009, The pre-Messinian deep-sea Neogene echinoid fauna of the Mediterranean: Surface productivity controls and biogeographical relationships: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 281, p. 115–125, doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.07.016.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., and Kroh, A., eds., 2011, The Echinoid Directory: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/echinoid-directory (accessed 8 January 2018).Google Scholar
Smith, A.B., and Savill, J.J., 2001, Bromidechinus, a new Ordovician echinozoan (Echinodermata), and its bearing on the early history of echinoids: Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences, v. 92, p. 137–147, doi:10.1017/S0263593300000109.Google Scholar
Speranza, F., Villa, I.M., Sagnotti, L., Florindo, F., Cosentino, D., Cipollari, P., and Mattei, M., 2002, Age of the Corsica and Sardinia rotation and Liguro-Provençal Basin spreading: New paleomagnetic and Ar/Ar evidences: Tectonophysics, v. 347, p. 231–251, doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(02)00031-8.Google Scholar
Steller, D.L., Riosmena-Rodrìguez, R., Foster, M.S., and Roberts, C.A., 2003, Rhodolith bed diversity in the Gulf of California: The importance of rhodolith structure and consequences of disturbance: Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, v. 13, supplement no. S1, p. 5–20, doi:10.1002/aqc.564.Google Scholar
Stimson, J., Cunha, T., and Philippoff, J., 2007, Food preferences and related behavior of the browsing sea urchin Tripneustes gratilla (Linnaeus) and its potential for use as a biological control agent: Marine Biology, v. 151, p. 1761–1772, doi:10.1007/s00227-007-0628-x.Google Scholar
Tedesco, L.P., and Wanless, H.R., 1991, Generation of sedimentary fabrics and facies by repetitive excavation and storm infilling of burrow networks, Holocene of South Florida and Caicos Platform, B.W.I.: Palaios, v. 6, p. 326–343.Google Scholar
Teichert, S., 2014, Hollow rhodoliths increase Svalbard's shelf biodiversity: Scientific Reports, v. 4, p. 6972, doi: 10.1038/srep06972.Google Scholar
Telford, M., 1985, Structural analysis of the test of Echinocyamus pusillus (O.F. Müller), in Keegan, B.F., and O'Conner, B.D.S., eds., Proceedings of the Fifth International Echinoderm Conference, Galway, 24-29 September 1984: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, A.A. Balkema, p. 353–360.Google Scholar
Telford, M., Harold, A., and Mooi, R., 1983, Feeding structures, behavior, and microhabitat of Echinocyamus pusillus (Echinoidea: Clypeasteroida): Biological Bulletin, v. 165, p. 745–757.Google Scholar
Telford, M., Mooi, R., and Harold, A., 1987, Feeding activities of two species of Clypeaster (Echinoides, Clypeasteroida): Further evidence of clypeasteroid resource partitioning: Biological Bulletin, v. 172, p. 324–336.Google Scholar
Tertschnig, W.P., 1989, Diel activity patterns and foraging dynamics of the sea urchin Tripneustes ventricosus in a tropical seagrass community and a reef environment (Virgin Islands): Marine Ecology, v. 10, p. 3–21.Google Scholar
Thiéry, P., 1909, Rectifications de nomenclature: Revue Critique de Paléozoologie, v. 13, p. 136–137.Google Scholar
Thomas, B., and Gennesseaux, M., 1986, A two-stage rifting in the basins of the Corsica-Sardinian straits: Marine Geology, v. 72, p. 225–239.Google Scholar
Thompson, B., and Riddle, M.J., 2005, Bioturbation behaviour of the spatangoid urchin Abatus ingens in Antarctic marine sediments: Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 290, p. 135–143, doi:10.3354/meps290135.Google Scholar
Tortonese, E., 1965, Fauna d'Italia, Volume 6, Echinodermata: Bologne, Italy, Calderini, 424 p.Google Scholar
Tortonese, E., 1977, Recenti acquisizioni e rettifiche intorno ai crinoidi, oloturoidi, ofiuroidi ed echinoidi del Mediterraneo, con particolare riguardo alla fauna Italiana: Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali, Milano, v. 118, p. 333–352.Google Scholar
Tuya, F., Martin, J.A., and Luque, A., 2004, Patterns of nocturnal movement of the long-spined sea urchin Diadema antillarum (Philippi) in Gran Canaria (the Canary Islands, central East Atlantic Ocean): Helgoland Marine Research, v. 58, p. 26–31, doi:10.1007/s10152-003-0164-0.Google Scholar
Unger, B., and Lott, C., 1994, In-situ studies aggregation behavior of the sea urchin Spaherechinus granularis Lam. (Echinodermata: Echinoidea), in David, B., Guille, A., Feral, J-P., and Roux, M., eds., Echinoderms Through Time: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Balkema, p. 913–919.Google Scholar
Ursin, E., 1960, A quantitative investigation of the echinoderm fauna of the central North Sea: Meddelelser fra Danmark Fiskeri-og-Havundersogelser, new ser., v. 2, p. 5-204.Google Scholar
Vaïtilingon, D., Rasolofonirina, R., and Jangoux, M., 2003, Feeding preferences, seasonal gut repletion indices, and diel feeding patterns on the sea urchin Tripneustes gratilla (Echinodermata, Echinoidea) on a costal habitat off Toliara (Madagascar): Marine Biology, v. 143, p. 451–458, doi:10.1007/s00227-003-1111-y.Google Scholar
van Phelsum, M., 1774, Brief aan den Wel-Eerwaardigen en Zeer Geleerden Heere Cornelius Nozeman, Dienaar des Goddelyken Woords in de Gemeente der Remonstranten, Lid van de Hollandsche Maatschappye der Letterkunde te Leiden, en Mede-Direteur van het Bataafsch Genootschap der Proef-Ondervindelyke, Wysbegeerte te Rotterdam, Over de Gewelv-Slekken of Zee-Egelen: Waar Achter Gevoegd zyn Twee Beschryvingen, de Eene van Zekere Soort van Zee-Wier: De Andere van Maaden, in Eene Vuile Verzweeringe Gevonden: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, R. Arrenberg, 145 p.Google Scholar
Velluttini, B.C., and Bigotto, A.E., 2010, Embryonic, larval, and juvenile development of the sea biscuit Clypeaster subdepressus (Echinodermata: Clypeasteroida): PloS ONE, v. 5, p. e9654, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009654.Google Scholar
Vonk, J.A., Pijnappels, M.H.J., and Stapel, J., 2008, In situ quantification of Tripneustes gratilla grazing and its effects on three co-occurring tropical seagrass species: Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 360, p. 107–114, doi:10.3354/meps07362.Google Scholar
Walker, D.E., and Gagnon, J.M., 2014, Locomotion and functional spine morphology of the hearth urchin Brisaster fragilis, with comparison to B. latifrons: Journal of Marine Biology, v. 2014, art. 297631, 9 p., doi:10.1155/2014/297631.Google Scholar
Wanless, H.R., Tedesco, L.P., and Tyrrell, K.M., 1988, Production of subtidal tubular and surficial tempestites by Hurricane Kate, Caicos Platform, British West Indies: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 58, p. 739–750.Google Scholar
Weber, F., 1795, Nomenclator Entomologicus Secundum Entomologiam Systematicum ill. Fabricii: Adjectis Speciebus Recens Detectis et Varietatibus: Kiel, Carolum Ernestum Bohn, 171 p.Google Scholar
Widdicombe, S., and Austen, M.C., 1998, Experimental evidence for the role of Brissopsis lyrifera (Forbes, 1841) as a critical species in the maintenance of benthic diversity and the modification of sediment chemistry: Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, v. 228, p. 241–255.Google Scholar
Yokes, B., and Galil, B.S., 2006, The first record of the needle-spined urchin Diadema setosum (Leske, 1778) (Echinodermata: Echinoidea: Diadematidae) from the Mediterranean Sea: Aquatic Invasion, v. 1, p. 188–190, doi:10.3391/ai.2006.1.3.15.Google Scholar
Zavodnik, D., 2003, Marine fauna of Mljet National Park (Adriatic Sea, Croatia) 2: Echinodermata: Acta Adriatica, v. 44, p. 101–157.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1.(1) Distribution of Miocene sedimentary rocks in Sardinia; (2) simplified geological map of the southwestern part of the Montiferru area (modified from Carboni et al., 2010); (3) panoramic view of the studied sedimentary succession (see Geological setting section for subdivision of Units 1 and 2).

Figure 1

Figure 2.Stratigraphic sections of (1) Santa Caterina di Pittinuri and (2) S'Archittu-Cajaragas, with occurrence, relative abundance, and taphonomic signatures of recognized echinoids (at genus levels) and associated macrofauna and flora within the assemblages studied herein.

Figure 2

Figure 3.Assemblage 1: (1) Brissopsis in overturned position and spatangoid fragments; (2) Echinocardium (MDLCA 23648); (3, 4) test (A) and spine remains (B) of Diadema; (5) remains of Tripneustes interambulacral (A; MDLCA 23649) and (B) ambulacral (B; MDLCA 23650) plates, Aristotle's lantern (C), and spines (MDLCA 23651); (6) remains of Schizechinus complete test (A; MDLCA 23652) and test fragment (B; MDLCA 23653).

Figure 3

Figure 4.(1) Rhodoliths from Assemblage 1 with encrusting barnacles; (2) detail of the sedimentary succession of Santa Caterina di Pittinuri showing Thalassinoides-like burrows.

Figure 4

Figure 5.Assemblage 2: (1) spatangoid remains (A) and Echinocyamus (B) in fine-grained sediments within the sedimentary sequence of S'Archittu; (2) Hemipatagus (MDLCA 23654); (3) test remains of Clypeaster marginatus; (4) remains of Genocidaris (A) and Echinocyamus (B) (MDLCA 23655); (5) Thalassinoides-like burrows partially filled with fragments of echinoids and bivalves.

Figure 5

Figure 6.Assemblage 3: (1) Brissopsis; (2) Ova morphotype 1; (3) Ova morphotype 2.

Figure 6

Table 1.Taphonomic attributes of the various echinoid taxa recognized within the assemblages studied herein. 1 = whole test with spines; 2 = whole test without spines; 3 = quarter to half tests; 4 = larger fragments of articulated ambulacral/interambulacral plates still sutured together; 5 = isolated plates, spine fragments.

Figure 7

Figure 7.Orientation data of complete echinoid specimens within the assemblages studied herein. N = number of counted specimens.

Figure 8

Table 2.Palaeoecological interpretation of the echinoid taxa recognized herein, with comparisons with Recent analogs.

Figure 9

Figure 8.Bathymetric distributions and modes of life of the Recent analogous taxa of the fossil echinoids recognized in the present study with interpreted depths for the three assemblages described herein. Each box plot represents 25% and 75% quartile of all values, Q1 and Q3, respectively. Black line inside box represents the median. Whiskers drawn from Q1 and Q3 to the largest values < 1.5 times the interquartile range (Q1–Q3). Outliers indicated by black dots. A1 = Assemblage 1; A2 = Assemblage 2; A3 = Assemblage 3.

Figure 10

Figure 9.Paleoecological reconstruction of the echinoid assemblages from the investigated levels in the sedimentary successions studied herein. The presence and depths of bioturbation are indicated; depth scale is the same for Assemblage 1, 2, and 3. See text for density and preservation of the various taxa within the assemblages.

Figure 11

Table 3.Summary of taxonomic, sedimentological, and taphonomic features of the echinoid assemblages from Santa Caterina di Pittinuri and S'Archittu-Cajaragas.

Figure 12

Table 4.Comparison between echinoid faunas of Santa Caterina-S'Archittu and Porto Torres. F-g C = fine-grained carbonates; F-g S = fine-grained sandstones; Rhb = rhodolith beds.