Paleoecologic and taxonomic implications of Sphenothallus and Sphenothallus-like specimens from Ohio and areas adjacent to Ohio
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Chronology of early Cambrian biomineralization
KOUCHINSKY, A., BENGTSON, S., RUNNEGAR, B., SKOVSTED, C., STEINER, M., & VENDRASCO, M. (2012) · Geological Magazine · doi:10.1017/s0016756811000720 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
- Authors
- Neal, M. L., & Hannibal, J. T.
- Affiliations
- Cleveland Museum of Natural History (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Paleontology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- 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