| North-Central Section–40th Annual Meeting (20–21 April 2006) | |
| Paper No. 8-7 | |
| Presentation Time: 10:20 AM-10:40 AM | ||
PREDATORY BORINGS PROVIDE NEW INSIGHTS ON THE PALEOECOLOGY AND SYSTEMATIC PLACEMENT OF HEDERELLIDS, COMMON ENCRUSTERS IN THE DEVONIAN OF OHIO | ||
|
WILSON, Mark A., Dept of Geology, College of Wooster, 944 College Mall, Wooster, OH 44691-2363, mwilson@wooster.edu and TAYLOR, Paul D., Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, United Kingdom Hederellids are colonial encrusters found on marine hard substrates from the Silurian into the Permian. They are especially common in the Devonian, encrusting rugose corals, brachiopod shells, stromatoporoids, pebbles, cobbles, and hardgrounds. Some of the best preserved colonies are found in the Middle Devonian of upper midwestern North America, including northwestern Ohio. Hederellids look superficially like cyclostome bryozoans with long tubular zooids composed of non-porous calcite. This is, in fact, how they are often classified in paleoecological and systematic studies. However, unlike bryozoans, their maximum zooidal diameter (1.5 mm) is relatively large (in bryozoans is it less than 0.5 mm), zooidal budding occurs from a stolonal tube in many species, and their fibrous wall structure contrasts with the lamellar microstructures of Paleozoic bryozoans. Like most encrusters, the hederellids were undoubtedly suspension feeders, probably employing tentaculate feeding organs to capture plankton. We have recently found small predatory borings drilled into some species of hederellids in the Middle Devonian of Ontario, New York and Ohio. We know these elliptical holes, about 0.2 to 0.3 mm in diameter with beveled edges, penetrated the skeletons of living zooids because they were often repaired from the inside using skeletal patches. These patches resemble repairs found in a modern cheilostome bryozoan, Microporella hyadesi (Jullien) from the South Atlantic. Based on their skeletal morphology, microstructure, and response to drilling predation, we suggest that the hederellids were neither bryozoans nor corals (another group to which they have been assigned in the past). Instead, it seems possible that they were phoronid-like invertebrates with retractable lophophores. | ||
|
North-Central Section–40th Annual Meeting (20–21 April 2006)
General Information for this Meeting | ||
| Session No. 8 Fossils of Ohio: A Century after Newberry Student Center, University of Akron: Theater 8:00 AM-12:00 PM, Thursday, 20 April 2006 Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 38, No. 4, p. 13 | ||
© Copyright 2006 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted to the author(s) of this abstract to reproduce and distribute it freely, for noncommercial purposes. Permission is hereby granted to any individual scientist to download a single copy of this electronic file and reproduce up to 20 paper copies for noncommercial purposes advancing science and education, including classroom use, providing all reproductions include the complete content shown here, including the author information. All other forms of reproduction and/or transmittal are prohibited without written permission from GSA Copyright Permissions. | ||