| 2009 Portland GSA Annual Meeting (18-21 October 2009) | |
| Paper No. 51-9 | |
| Presentation Time: 3:45 PM-4:00 PM | ||
CAMBRIAN COPROLITES: A RECORD OF NON-ANOMALOCARIDID GNATHOBASIC PREDATION | ||
|
HAGADORN, James W., Department of Geology, Amherst College, Amherst, MA 01002, jwhagadorn@amherst.edu Cambrian coprolites provide important evidence of the diet and body size of predators and scavengers. Unfortunately, coprolites are extremely rare and difficult to recognize. In order to identify a bona fide Cambrian coprolite, one needs to thin-section or slab the fossil and falsify the hypothesis that it is: i) part of a circular to cylindrical debris-lined resting trace such as Bergaueria; ii) a spherical to blob-like regurgitation; iii) a premortem aggregation of complete individuals (e.g., a chain- or sphere-like aggregation of Waptia); iv) a elongate or flattened lined burrow; and v) the elongate weathered edge of a mm-thick skeletal hash bed, bounded by overlying and underlying shale. Coprolites from the Latham Shale and Poleta Formations (E. Cambrian, CA) and Burgess Shale (M. Cambrian, BC) pass these criteria. Coprolites are 0.5-1 cm wide, 3-8 cm long, and are composed entirely of crushed trilobite, brachiopod, hyolithid, and other skeletal material. They do not contain complete individuals and are isolated from adjacent and over/underlying laminations by shale in which no other skeletal debris occurs. Coprolites are elongate to capsule-shaped, taper along their long axis, are compressed or boudin-shaped along their short axis, and do not exhibit evidence of sediment filled interiors (e.g., like many collapsed lined burrows). They are similar in size and shape to elongate putative coprolites from the Emu Bay Shale (E. Cambrian, S. Australia) and Marjum Formation (M. Cambrian, UT). Because anomalocaridids had a soft mouth which could not close, and because they had soft preoral appendages, they could not have produced these coprolites. Neither could priapulids, which did not crush biominerlized prey and are not known to have scavenged skeletal debris. More plausible producers are arthropods with robust gnathobasic appendages, such as Sidneyia inexpectans (Burgess Shale, BC), Utahcaris orion (Spence Shale, UT), or redlichiid trilobites (global distribution). Sidneyia and Utahcaris have gut contents consisting of crushed trilobite, ostracods, hyolithids, and other phosphatic skeletal debris – making their linkage to these coprolites plausible. Retrodeformation of coprolites into cylindrical bodies also matches well with the interpreted gut size of these arthropods. | ||
|
2009 Portland GSA Annual Meeting (18-21 October 2009)
General Information for this Meeting | ||
| Session No. 51 Paleontology: Movement & Distribution Oregon Convention Center: Portland Ballroom 255 1:30 PM-5:30 PM, Sunday, 18 October 2009 Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 41, No. 7, p. 162 | ||
© Copyright 2009 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. | ||