9 research outputs found

    Radiolarians decreased silicification as an evolutionary response to reduced Cenozoic ocean silica availability

    No full text
    It has been hypothesized that increased water column stratification has been an abiotic “universal driver” affecting average cell size in Cenozoic marine plankton. Gradually decreasing Cenozoic radiolarian shell weight, by contrast, suggests that competition for dissolved silica, a shared nutrient, resulted in biologic coevolution between radiolaria and marine diatoms, which expanded dramatically in the Cenozoic. We present data on the 2 components of shell weight change—size and silicification—of Cenozoic radiolarians. In low latitudes, increasing Cenozoic export of silica to deep waters by diatoms and decreasing nutrient upwelling from increased water column stratification have created modern silica-poor surface waters. Here, radiolarian silicification decreases significantly (r = 0.91, P < 0.001), from ≈0.18 (shell volume fraction) in the basal Cenozoic to modern values of ≈0.06. A third of the total change occurred rapidly at 35 Ma, in correlation to major increases in water column stratification and abundance of diatoms. In high southern latitudes, Southern Ocean circulation, present since the late Eocene, maintains significant surface water silica availability. Here, radiolarian silicification decreased insignificantly (r = 0.58, P = 0.1), from ≈0.13 at 35 Ma to 0.11 today. Trends in shell size in both time series are statistically insignificant and are not correlated with each other. We conclude that there is no universal driver changing cell size in Cenozoic marine plankton. Furthermore, biologic and physical factors have, in concert, by reducing silica availability in surface waters, forced macroevolutionary changes in Cenozoic low-latitude radiolarians

    Cephalic and Limb Anatomy of a New Isoxyid from the Burgess Shale and the Role of “Stem Bivalved Arthropods” in the Disparity of the Frontalmost Appendage

    No full text
    <div><p>We herein describe <i>Surusicaris elegans</i> gen. et sp. nov. (in Isoxyidae, amended), a middle (Series 3, Stage 5) Cambrian bivalved arthropod from the new Burgess Shale deposit of Marble Canyon (Kootenay National Park, British Columbia). <i>Surusicaris</i> exhibits 12 simple, partly undivided biramous trunk limbs with long tripartite caeca, which may illustrate a plesiomorphic “fused” condition of exopod and endopod. We construe also that the head is made of five somites (= four segments), including two eyes, one pair of anomalocaridid-like frontalmost appendages, and three pairs of poorly sclerotized uniramous limbs. This fossil may therefore be a candidate for illustrating the origin of the plesiomorphic head condition in euarthropods, and questions the significance of the “two-segmented head” in, e.g., fuxianhuiids. The frontalmost appendage in isoxyids is intriguingly disparate, bearing similarities with both dinocaridids and euarthropods. In order to evaluate the relative importance of bivalved arthropods, such as <i>Surusicaris</i>, in the hypothetical structuro-functional transition between the dinocaridid frontal appendage and the pre-oral—arguably deutocerebral—appendage of euarthropods, we chose a phenetic approach and computed morphospace occupancy for the frontalmost appendages of 36 stem and crown taxa. Results show different levels of evolutionary decoupling between frontalmost appendage disparity and body plans. Variance is greatest in dinocaridids and “stem bivalved” arthropods, but these groups do not occupy the morphospace homogeneously. Rather, the diversity of frontalmost appendages in “stem bivalved” arthropods, distinct in its absence of clear clustering, is found to link the morphologies of “short great appendages,” chelicerae and antennules. This find fits the hypothesis of an increase in disparity of the deutocerebral appendage prior to its diversification in euarthropods, and possibly corresponds to its original time of development. The analysis of this pattern, however, is sensitive to the—still unclear—extent of polyphyly of the “stem bivalved” taxa.</p></div
    corecore