Cited by 14Paleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Paleoecologic and taxonomic implications of Sphenothallus and Sphenothallus-like specimens from Ohio and areas adjacent to Ohio

Neal, Maxwell Lewis, Hannibal, Joseph T.·2000·Journal of Paleontology

Abstract

Sphenothallus and fossils similar to Sphenothallus are found in Ordovician, Devonian, and Mississippian rock units in Ohio and adjacent states and provinces. Although the Ordovician of Québec, Ontario, and Indiana has yielded parts of tubes, Ordovician specimens from southwest Ohio and nearby areas consist almost entirely of holdfasts on hardgrounds and shelly fossils. Sphenothallus is abundant in the Chagrin Shale (Famennian) of northeast Ohio where it is found in about four percent of concretions that contain identifiable fossils. The Chagrin specimens, usually parts of tubes, are occasionally preserved three-dimensionally. The rate of distal expansion of Chagrin Sphenothallus tubes varies intraspecifically; thus, this rate cannot be used to distinguish species. Some Chagrin specimens are attached to larger, conspecific specimens and to articulate brachiopods. Brachiopods have also been found attached to Chagrin Sphenothallus. Bedford-Berea sequence (Famennian) specimens from northern Kentucky and Meadville Member (Kinderhookian or Osagian) specimens from the Cuyahoga Formation of northeast Ohio are usually preserved as flattened tubes. In both occurrences tubes are similar in width, indicating that individuals in each assemblage are probably the same age. Meadville tubes possess characteristics diagnostic of Sphenothallus, but Bedford-Berea specimens, which lack longitudinal thickenings and exhibit little tube tapering, cannot be assigned to Sphenothallus sensu strictu. Sphenothallus was a gregarious, opportunistic species, tolerant of dysaerobic conditions and able to colonize environments ranging from hardgrounds to soft, muddy sea bottoms. No distinct branching was observed among the Chagrin, Bedford-Berea, or Meadville specimens, suggesting that larval dispersal was the primary mode of reproduction for the genus.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0022336000031644

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hyolithelminths are similar to Sphenotallus and Byronia, may be cnidarians as well, but do not show budding typical of the Cnidaria.

    “They are similar to Sphenotallus Hall, 1847 and Byronia Matthew, 1899 also known from the Cambrian Series 2 and may be cnidarians as well, but do not show budding typical of the Cnidaria”

    From Chronology of early Cambrian biomineralization (2012) · cites this paper as Neal & Hannibal, 2000

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neal, M. L., & Hannibal, J. T.
Affiliations
Cleveland Museum of Natural History (US)
Venue
Journal of Paleontology
Published
2000-05
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
369-380
ISSN
  • 0022-3360 (ISSN-L)
  • 1937-2337
OpenAlex
W4248647635
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Paleontology (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Kentucky
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
Sphenothallus, Ordovician, Devonian, Mississippian, Famennian, hardgrounds, holdfast, tube morphology, paleoecology, taxonomy, larval dispersal, Ohio

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review