View - Kowalewski, M. - Virginia Tech

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS, V. 8, 2002hard- and soft-shelled invertebrates in the pelagicrealm (Rieppel, 1998). Teeth of some nothosaurs,such as Simosaurus, have a bulbous shape whichmay have had a somewhat durophagous function(Rieppel, 2002). Anatomical evidence indicatesthat Simosaurus had strong neck muscles and wascapable of rapid jaw opening; suction also mayhave been used to round up shelled ammonoids orfish (Rieppel, 2002). Nothosaurus mirabilis hadspecialized jaw adductor muscles, heterodontdentition with procumbent fangs, and a very narrowand elongate skull (Rieppel, 2002). The heterodontdentition suggests most nothosaurs ate fish, althoughthe gastric contents of one nothosaurid (Lariosaurus)contained placodonts and small pachypleurosaurs(Sander, 1989; Tschanz, 1989; Rieppel, 2002). Theymay also have eaten soft-bodied invertebrates, suchas cephalopods. Simosaurus may have eaten hardshelledprey (Rieppel, 2002). Some nothosaurs,because of their large size, may have been at the topof the food chain.Pistosauroidea.—The Triassic Pistosaruoideagave rise to the plesiosaurs that were common inthe Jurassic and Cretaceous seas. Some pistosaurianshad jaws similar to those of the putatively fish-eatingnothosaurids (e.g., Nothosaurus), and others, suchas Pistosaurus, had narrow and elongated pincertypejaws, that had less numerous and widely-spacedheterodont dentition with maxillary fangs (Rieppel,2002). Puncturing prey, rather than suction feeding,may have been the modus operandi of thesecreatures, and they may have fed on soft-shelledpelagic invertebrates and fish (Rieppel, 2002).Ichthyosauria.—Ichthyosaurs (Order Ichthyosauria)(Figs. 2.4–2.6; 4) are known from the LowerTriassic to Cenomanian (Bardet, 1994), but theyhave only recently been studied in detail (Callaway,1997a). Triassic ichthyosaurs were nearly as diverseand widespread as Jurassic ichthyosaurs, but arenotoriously affected by preservational bias(Callaway, 1997b; Sander, 1997). Because of thispreservational bias, little is known about theevolution of dentition in Triassic ichthyosaurs. Mostof them likely had heterodont dentition, indicatingthat they were generalist feeders in nearshore waters(Massare and Calloway, 1990).Some Middle Triassic ichthyosaurs with largerear teeth may have been molluscivorous (Massareand Callaway, 1990). In the Jurassic and Cretaceous,the dentition became homodont, indicating that theymay have become specialized on pelagic prey(Massare and Callaway, 1990). Perhaps they werespecialists on fish and/or soft-bodied cephalopods(Sander, 1997; Massare and Callaway, 1990).Gastric contents indicate that they may have fed onbelemnite cephalopods, although no belemnite orammonoid shells have ever been found inichthyosaurian stomach contents. Based on bodyform, by the end of the Triassic, ichthyosaurs werehydrodynamically advanced and were very fastswimminganimals (Lingham-Soliar, 2001).Pterosaurs.—The appearance of pterosaurs inthe middle of the Triassic Period (Benton, 1993) mayhave increased predation pressure on near-surfacenektonic organisms, including fish and cephalopods.The long jaws and impaling spike-like teeth ofrhamphorhynchids and many pterosauroids suggestsa piscivorous diet in these flying reptiles.TRIASSIC BENTHICORGANISMS:ANTIPREDATORY RESPONSES?Varied morphological and behavioral featuresof benthic invertebrates have been interpreted asantipredatory adaptations (Fig. 3), although manyof these features may be merely exaptations(sensu Gould and Vrba, 1982). Triassic benthicfaunas are decidedly “no frills” relative to thoseof the late Paleozoic (Valentine, 1973). Shells arerelatively thin and mainly lacking in spines. Inaddition, several groups of cemented bivalves—the ostreids, gryphaeids, plicatulids, andterquemids—first became abundant on hardsubstrates in the Triassic. Harper (1991) hasdemonstrated experimentally that predators avoidcemented bivalves when given a choice.The evolutionary breakthrough of mantlefusion in bivalves led to the rapid development ofinfaunal clades in the early Mesozoic (Stanley,1977). Mud- and rock-boring bivalves also firstbecame common during this time (Seilacher, 1985;128
WALKER AND BRETT—POST-PALEOZOIC PATTERNS IN MARINE PREDATIONFIGURE 3—Temporal ranges of various potential anti-predatory adaptive or exaptative strategies invarious invertebrate groups; semi: semi-endobenthic (quasi-infaunal); burrow: burrowing endobenthicorganisms. Thin lines: present, but of limited abundance; thick lines: abundant; broken lines: possiblypresent but rare as fossils.129
Page 1:
THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETYPAPERSVo
Page 4 and 5:
The Paleontological Society Special
Page 6 and 7:
AuthorsRICHARD K. BAMBACHBotanical
Page 9 and 10:
THE FOSSIL RECORD OF PREDATIONMicha
Page 13 and 14:
INTRODUCTIONTHE FOSSIL RECORD OF PR
Page 15:
KOWALEWSKI—ANALYTICAL METHODSTHE
Page 18 and 19:
PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS, V.
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91: PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS, V.
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412:
THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERSP
show all

View - Kowalewski, M. - Virginia Tech

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?