Cited by 28Paleontology and Evolutionary BiologyEchinoderm biology and ecologyEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Origins and biomechanical evolution of teeth in echinoids and their relatives

REICH, MIKE, SMITH, ANDREW B.·2009·Palaeontology

Abstract

Abstract: Echinoid teeth are without doubt the most complex and highly specialized skeletal component to have evolved in echinoderms. They are biomechanically constructed to be resilient and tough while maintaining a self‐sharpening point. Based on SEM analysis of isolated tooth elements collected primarily from the Ordovician and Silurian of Gotland, we provide a detailed structural analysis of the earliest echinoderm teeth. Eight distinct constructional designs are recognized encompassing various degrees of sophistication, from a simple vertical battery of tooth spines to advanced teeth with multiple tooth plate series and a reinforced core of fibres. These provide key data from which we reconstruct the early stages of tooth evolution. The simplest teeth are composed of stacked rod‐like elements with solid calcite tips. More advanced teeth underwent continuous replacement of tooth elements, as a simple self‐sharpening mechanism. Within echinoids tooth design was refined by evolving thinner, flatter primary plates with buttressing, allowing maintenance of a sharper and stronger biting edge. Despite the obvious homology between the lanterns of ophiocistioids and echinoids, their teeth are very different in microstructural organization, and they have evolved different self‐sharpening mechanisms. Whereas echinoid teeth evolved from a biseries of mouth spines, ophiocistioid goniodonts evolved from a single series of mouth spines. Rogeriserra represents the most primitive known battery of tooth elements but its taxonomic affinities remain unknown.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00900.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Reciprocal feedbacks between prey and their defence structures (e.g. in arthropods and echinoderms) and either group of competing jawed predators (and increasing efficiency of both locomotory structures and jaws) appear quite likely.

    “Reciprocal feedbacks between prey and their defence structures, e.g . in arthropods and echinoderms (see for example Reich & Smith 2009) and either group of competing jawed predators (and increasing efficiency of both locomotory structures and jaws), appear quite likely ( cf . Vermeij 1987, 1994, 2013; Brett & Walker 2002).”

    From Palaeozoic evolution of animal mouthparts (2017) · cites this paper as Reich & Smith 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
REICH, M., & SMITH, A. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • Natural History Museum (GB)
Corresponding author
  • REICH, MIKE
  • SMITH, ANDREW B.
Venue
Palaeontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-09
Volume
52
Issue
5
Pages
1149-1168
ISSN
  • 0031-0239 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-4983
OpenAlex
W2011382542
Cited by
28
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Palaeontology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Echinoderm biology and ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
dental evolution, Echinodermata, lanterns, tooth microstructure, calcite, tooth replacement, Ordovician, Silurian, Gotland, biomechanics

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