Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Arm regeneration in Mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic?
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Arm regeneration in Mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic?
Do you wish to request the book?
Arm regeneration in Mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic?
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Arm regeneration in Mississippian crinoids: evidence of intense predation pressure in the Paleozoic?
2005
Overview
Although direct predator-prey interactions are unobservable in the fossil record, predation has been used to explain many evolutionary trends. Evidence of predation supporting such hypotheses is often presented as isolated instances of preserved sublethal damage, and less commonly, as the frequency of such injuries. For instance, numerous morphological and ecological trends and innovations observed in Phanerozoic crinoids have been causally linked to predation, and whereas the high frequency of arm regeneration in living crinoids is generally assumed to represent intense predation, attempts to assess regeneration frequency and patterns in paleontological samples are few. Can the frequency of fossil injuries be assessed to test hypothesized predation-driven trends, or are such data unavailable? To address this question, we analyzed regeneration in crinoids from the lower Mississippian (Kinderhookian) Maynes Creek Formation near Le Grand, Iowa, a locality renowned for the preservation of thousands of crinoids in tangled masses of crowns, stalks, and holdfasts. Nine percent of the specimens that we examined contained at least one regenerating arm; however, whereas some species lacked evidence of regeneration, others preserved up to 27% arm regeneration. Furthermore, we observed specimens with all arms regenerating, multiple adjacent arms regenerating from the same place along the arm, and a specimen with a damaged and regenerated primaxil and anal sac. The highest regeneration frequency was observed in the most abundant species, Rhodocrinites kirbyi, a significantly higher value than expected under a model of no taxonomic selectivity (binomial: p < 0.05). Furthermore, bootstrapped simulations of the probable number of regenerated individuals suggest that the number of regenerated arms observed in our sample is two to three times less than what existed in the living population. Rhodocrinites kirbyi constituted over 40% of the individuals in the Le Grand crinoid fauna and had the longest stalk of the studied species. In addition, regeneration in R. kirbyi is size related, with individuals above median dorsal cup height (7 mm) displaying nearly 50% regeneration, and smaller individuals only 2% (a statistically significant difference; χ2 test: p < 0.001). The regeneration patterns in R. kirbyi are consistent with predatory attacks that target the most apparent prey. Moreover, this study suggests that predation is the most likely explanation for the regeneration patterns observed in Le Grand crinoids, and that the fossil record potentially provides a valuable, yet overlooked, data source for testing hypotheses pertinent to the role of predation in the evolution of Phanerozoic marine life.
