Translator Disclaimer
6 June 2012 A New Middle Devonian Cystoporate Bryozoan from Germany Containing a New Symbiont Bioclaustration
Author Affiliations +

An unusual cystoporate bryozoan from the Middle Devonian (Givetian) Ahbach Formation of the Hillersheim Syncline (Eifel, Rhenish Massif, Germany) is described as Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov. The lamellar colonies have elongate stellate maculae with depressed centres consisting of vesicular skeleton. All colonies collected contain vertical axial tubular holes, which are embedment structures formed by the bryozoan around a soft-bodied symbiont and lined by bryozoan skeleton. These bioclaustrations are referred to the ichnogenus Chaetosalpinx, previously known in Ordovician—Devonian corals and sponges, and are described as Chaetosalpinx tapanilai ichnosp. nov. Ecological analogues to Chaetosalpinx tapanilai can be found in modern bryozoans in which tubes formed of bryozoan calcite are occupied by spionid polychaetes, or less often tanaidacean crustaceans.


The Devonian represents a transitional time in the evolution of bryozoans, with a switchover from early Palaeozoic faunas typically dominated by trepostomes to late Palaeozoic faunas in which fenestrates generally dominate (Cuffey and McKinney 1979; Bigey 1983). These changes were apparently induced by a series of mass extinctions, which led to shifts in the taxonomic composition of bryozoan faunas (Horowitz and Pachut 1993; Horowitz et al. 1996). Despite their abundance and importance, Devonian bryozoan faunas in Europe have been scarcely investigated. The main reason for this is the complicated internal morphology demanding extensive preparation, mainly using oriented thin sections, for study.

During the course of this project, Devonian bryozoan faunas of the European region have been studied. These have proved to be abundant and diverse (e.g., Ernst 2008; Ernst and Königshof 2010). For example, Middle Devonian bryozoan faunas from the Rhenish Massif contain approximately 70 species (Ernst 2008). A component of this fauna is a distinctive cystoporate found in the lower Givetian in the Eifel (Rhenish Massif). Colonies of this bryozoan, here described as a new genus and species, contain abundant tubes preserved as embedment structures by bryozoan skeletal growth around a soft-bodied symbiont. These bioclaustrations are described as a new species of the ichnogenus Chaetosalpinx, previously recorded in corals and stromatoporoids (Tapanila 2006). The aim of the present paper is to describe the new bryozoan and its associated ichnofossil, and to discuss the palaeoecology of the symbiosis.

Institutional abbreviations.—SMF, Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Geological and palaeontological setting

Middle Devonian carbonate strata of the Eifel are only preserved within the “Eifel Limestone Synclinorium” (Fig. 1), a north-south trending axial depression of the Rhenish Massif (Fig. 1A). Palaeogeographical facies interpretation is difficult because relatively little of this Middle Devonian shelf is preserved. In general-, siliciclastic sediments were derived from the northern Old Red Continent, with a retreating coastline toward the north.

Fig. 1.

Map showing location of the abandoned Müllertchen Quarry within the Hillesheim Syncline. Geological overview of the Rhenish Massif (A), showing the studied area (taken from Bohatý et al. 2012; modified from Korn 2008 after Walter 1995) and detailed view of the Eifel Synclines (B) with the fossil locality 1 (modified after Struve 1996c).


Winter (in Meyer et al. 1977) defined three characteristic facies (Facies Types A–C) of considerable importance for faunal distribution and associations in the Eifel Sea. Facies Type A, distinguished by clastic sediments with low carbonate content, is developed within the northern Eifel Limestone Synclinorium. Facies Type B is developed within the eastern part of the Eifel Limestone Synclinorium and is characterized by pure, commonly biostromal limestone, with minor marly and silty components. This facies is indicative of a shallow-water setting and was located close to a shallow-marine barrier in the NE-Eifel (“Mid-Eifelian High” sensu Winter in Meyer et al. 1977). Facies Type C, outcropping in the south of the Eifel Limestone Synclinorium, is characterized by interbedded limestone and marl deposited under normal marine conditions. Clay content increases in a southerly direction and Facies Type C passes into the clay-rich facies of the Moselle Trough (= “Wissenbach Slate” ). Faber (1980: 122) characterized the lower Eifelian environment as a two-phase, shallow-marine carbonate platform, which was temporarily interrupted during regressions. He inferred a relatively undifferentiated open shelf characterized by southwest-northeast trending facies belts in the west.

The basic threefold stratigraphic division can be modified locally due to short transgressive and regressive phases leading to lateral facies displacement or loss of facies identity. In the upper Eifelian, Freilingen Formation (Fig. 2), facies differences become indistinct and Facies Type C is present everywhere. In the Lower Givetian, stromatoporoid/coral-biostromes extended all over the Eifel Sea. Krebs (1974) characterized the whole Eifel as a shelf lagoon, enclosed by a barrier to the south.

Paproth and Struve (1982: fig. 4) proposed another subdivision based on faunal composition. They identified distinct biofacies between the northern, western and southern Eifel; the Spinocyrtia ostiolata-biofacieS being the most common in the western and the southern parts of the Eifel. The north-Eifel biofacies correlates with Facies Type A, and the ostiolata-biofacies with Facies Types B–C.

Fig. 2.

Lowermost Lower Givetian stratigraphy of the “Type Eifelian Profile” sensu Struve (1982); light grey: biostratigraphic distribution of fistuliporid bryozoan Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov.; dark grey: maximum distribution.


The classic fossil localities, as well as all of the fossil sites studied herein, are situated within the fossil-rich deposits of Middle Devonian Facies Type C (Spinocyrtia ostiolata-biofacies) in the middle and southern parts of the Eifel. Consequently, the deposits within the Hillesheim Syncline were chosen as the “Type Eifelian”, the reference section for all synclines (Struve 1982), although correlation has proven difficult between synclines (Hotz et al. 1955) due to numerous bio- and lithofacies differences, especially within the northern and southernmost Eifel. The erection of regional members reflects the complexity of the depositional realm but results in a puzzling array of, in part, uncorrelated formations, subformations and members (sensu Struve 1961, 1992). Therefore, Struve (1996a, b) tried to correlate the Middle Devonian sequences using brachiopod biostratigraphy to erect valid lithostratigraphical units.

The studied bryozoans come from the abandoned “Müllertchen Quarry” near the village of Ahütte (Rhineland Palatinate, western Germany) within the Hillesheim Syncline (Eifel, Rhenish Massif) (Fig. 1). The quarry is dominated by marly and silty deposits of the Eifelian/Givetian boundary interval: lower Lahr Member of the uppermost upper Eifelian to upper Lahr, and, predominantly Olifant and Zerberus members of the Müllert Subformation (Ahbach Formation, lowermost Lower Givetian) (Fig. 2). Colonies of Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov. hosting Chaetosalpinx tapanilai ichnosp. nov. were found within beds of the upper Olifant Member (“Wurmweide Set” sensu Struve and Werner 1982), which is characterized by traces of Chondrites sp. extending from the overlying lower Zerberus Member.

The facies of both the Olifant and Zerberus members indicates a soft-bottom mainly populated by crinoids (e.g., the cladids Halocrinites sampelayoi [Almela and Revilla, 1950] and H. inflatus [Schultze, 1866], the flexible Ammonicrinus leunisseni Bohatý, 2012), brachiopods (e.g., Xystostrophia umbraculum Schlotheim, 1820), receptaculids, proetid trilobites, and rugose corals (e.g., Macgeea bathycalyx bathycalyx [Frech, 1886] and Microcyclus clypeatus [Goldfuss, 1826]). Blackish plant fossils and well-preserved remains of the sponge Astraeospongium cf. meniscum (Römer, 1848) also occur. These autochthonous fossils are associated with well-preserved cystoporate, trepostome, cryptostome, and fenestrate bryozoans (Ernst 2008).

The terms subformation and member are not synonymised sensu Steininger and Piller (1999) but are used hierarchically (Ulrich Jansen, personal communication 2005; also see Bohatý 2005; Bohatý et al. 2012). Capitalization of the Givetian subdivisions follows Becker (2005, 2007).


Specimens were cleaned using the ethanol-tenside Rewoquad and micro-sand streaming methods, and initially studied using a binocular microscope. Thin sections of Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov. hosting Chaetosalpinx tapanilai ichnosp. nov. were made from hand specimens and from colonies embedded in the epoxy resin SpeciFix-40. They were investigated using transmitted light microscopy.

The following morphological characters were measured in thin sections: aperture width, distance between aperture centres, length of lunaria, width of lunaria, thickness of lunaria, diameter of vesicles, spacing of vesicles, and maculae length and width. Statistics are summarized in the tables accompanying the bryozoan species description.

Systematic palaeontology

Phyllum Bryozoa Ehrenberg, 1831
Class Stenolaemata Borg, 1926
Order Cystoporata Astrova, 1964
Suborder Fistuliporina Astrova, 1964
Family Fistuliporidae Ulrich, 1882
Genus Stellatoides nov.

  • Type species: Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov., by monotypy; see below.

  • Etymology: From Latin stellatus, star shaped; in reference to the presence of star-shaped maculae.

  • Diagnosis.—Colony encrusting, lamellar, often with multiple overgrowths. Maculae stellate with depressed centres. Autozooecia cylindrical with thin granular walls and complete diaphragms. Autozooecial apertures rounded. Lunaria triangular. Autozooecia separated by extrazooidal vesicular skeleton. Acanthostyles occurring in roofs of vesicles.

  • Remarks.Stellatoides gen. nov. differs from other known cystoporate bryozoans in having stellate maculae. Fistuliporella Simpson, 1897 resembles Stellatoides in the morphology of the autozooecia and vesicular skeleton. However, the new genus possesses long triangular lunaria unlike the semicircular ones found in Fistuliporella. Eridopora Ulrich, 1882 has long triangular lunaria but differs from Stellatoides in having smaller vesicles. Similar elongated maculae with depressed centres are known in Ceramella Hall and Simpson, 1887, which belongs to the family Hexagonellidae Crockford, 1947. However, maculae in Ceramella are not stellate, and this genus is characterised by a bifoliate colony shape contrasting with the encrusting colonies of Stellatoides gen. nov.

  • Stratigraphic and geographic range.—Lower Givetian (Middle Devonian) of the Rhenish Massif, Germany.

  • Fig. 3.

    Fistuliporid bryozoan Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov., Middle Devonian (Lower Givetian, Ahbach Formation) of the abandoned “Müllertchen Quarry” (Hillesheim Syncline, Eifel, Rhenish Massif, northwestern Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany). A. Paratype SMF 21.115, goblet-shaped colony, side view. B. Paratype SMF 21.110, fragment of goblet-shaped colony showing maculae.


    Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov.
    Figs. 35.

  • Etymology: Named after the type locality Müllertchen Quarry.

  • Type material: Holotype: SMF 21.108 (Fig. 4A), 4 thin sections. Paratypes: SMF 21.109-SMF 21.116 (19 thin sections from 4 colonies and 5 unprepared colonies).

  • Type locality: Üxheim-Ahütte, abandoned Müllertchen Quarry, Hillersheim syncline, Eifel, western Rhenish Massif (geological map sheet 5606 Üxheim; 50°21′, 6°46′).

  • Type horizon: Set 2 “Wurmweide”, Olifant Member, Müllert Subformation (Ahbach Formation, lowermost Lower Givetian, Middle Devonian; Polygnathus hemiansatus Conodont Biozone).

  • Other material.—Eight cleaned colonies in the private collection of Robert Leunissen (Nideggen-Wollersheim, Germany).

  • Diagnosis.—As for monotypic genus.

  • Description.—Colonies lamellar, often with multiple overgrowths (Fig. 4B), freely growing or encrusting ephemeral substrates and producing hollow ramose, goblet-shaped colonies (Fig. 3A). Encrusting sheets 0.5–2.2 mm in thickness, multilayered colonies reaching up to 4.3 mm thick. Maculae elongate (Fig. 3B), 2.8–12.0 mm long by 1.0–2.9 mm wide, spaced 6.4–13.8 mm from centre to centre, stellate, with depressed centres comprising vesicular tissue (Fig. 4A2); shorter and wider at the base of ramose colonies, becoming longer and narrower in distal parts of goblet-shaped colonies.

  • Autozooecia cylindrical (Fig. 4A1), growing from thin epitheca, bending sharply towards colony surface at their bases. Apertures circular to oval. Lunaria triangular, consisting of hyaline material, directed towards the nearest macula. Basal diaphragms rare, thin, horizontal or inclined. Vesicles medium to large in size (Fig. 4A3), separating autozooecia in 1–2 rows, 5–9 surrounding each autozooecial aperture, polygonal in tangential section, box-like to hemispherical, with plane or concave roofs, consisting of granular skeleton. Single acanthostyle occurring at centre of each vesicle roof (Fig. 4A5), with narrow laminated sheath and distinct hyaline core, 0.020–0.035 mm in diameter. Autozooecial walls granular, 0.010–0.020 mm thick.

  • Stratigraphic and geographic range.—As for genus.

  • Table 1.

    Measurements (in mm) of fistuliporid bryozoan Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov. (Middle Devonian, Rhenish Massif). Summary descriptive statistics of three colonies. Abbreviations: CV, coefficient of variation; MIN, minimum values; MAX, maximum values; N, number of measurements; SD, sample standard deviation; X, arithmetic mean.


    Fig. 4.

    Fistuliporid bryozoan Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov., Middle Devonian (Lower Givetian) of the Rhenish Massif, north-western Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. A. Holotype SMF 21.108, transverse section showing autozooecial chambers and vesicular skeleton (A1), tangential sections showing autozooecial apertures with lunaria and vesicles (A2–A5). B. Paratype SMF 21.113, longitudinal section showing multilayered secondary overgrowths.


    Systematic ichnology

    Ichnogenus Chaetosalpinx Sokolov, 1948

  • Type species: Chaetosalpinx ferganensis Sokolov, 1948; Silurian, Uzbekistan (see Zapalski 2007).

  • Chaetosalpinx tapanilai ichnosp. nov.
    Fig. 5.

  • Etymology: Named for Leif Tapanila (Idaho State University) in recognition of his work on bioclaustrations.

  • Type material. Holotype: SMF 21.118, specimen shown in Fig. 5C. Paratypes: SMF 21.117, SMF 21.119-SMF 21.125.

  • Type locality: Üxheim-Ahütte, abandoned Müllertchen Quarry, Hillersheim Syncline, Eifel, western Rhenish Massif (UTM: 50°20′05.16″N, 6°46′15.19″E).

  • Type horizon: Set 2 “Wurmweide”, Olifant Member, Müllert Subformation (Ahbach Formation, lowermost Lower Givetian, Middle Devonian; Polygnathus hemiansatus Conodont Biozone).

  • Diagnosis.Chaetosalpinx bioclaustrated by bryozoans (Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov.), cylindrical, averaging 0.7 mm in diameter, ranging from 0.4–1.3 mm, aperture circular, less commonly elliptical or reniform, edges raised slightly above surface of host bryozoan.

  • Description.—Cylindrical embedment trace (bioclaustration) found within colonies of cystoporate bryozoan Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov. Cylinder up to at least 4 mm long, oriented vertically (i.e., parallel to upward bryozoan growth direction) for most of length; straight, parallel sided, infilled either with calcite cement (Fig. 5B) or fine-grained sediment (Fig. 5C). No internal structures observed. Originating at or very close to the base of bryozoan colony, basal part of cylinder apparently horizontal in some examples. Cylinder bounded by wall formed by bryozoan skeleton (?interior wall calcification), up to 0.06 mm thick but usually about 0.03 mm thick, other bryozoan skeletal walls deflected upwards in vicinity of tube (cf. the downwards deflection of walls around autozooecial tubes); cystose skeleton often concentrically arranged around the tube when viewed in transverse section. Tube diameter ranging from 0.4–1.3 mm, averaging 0.7 mm. Numerous individuals of varying diameters opening on surface of same host bryozoan colony, located in intermacular areas, arranged semiregularly. Apertures circular, less commonly elliptical or reniform, edges raised by up to 0.3 mm above surrounding colony surface (Fig. 5A).

  • Remarks.—The new species fits within the concept of the ichnogenus Chaetosalpinx as applied by Stel (1976), Tapanila (2002, 2005, 2006), and Tapanila and Ekdale (2007) for tubular, vertical embedment traces with margins defined by skeletal walls secreted by biomineralized host organisms. Seven species of Chaetosalpinx have been described: the type species C. ferganensis Sokolov, 1948, and its subjective synonyms C. khatangaensis Sokolov, 1948, C. huismani Stel, 1976 and C. groningae Stel, 1976 (see Tapanila 2002, 2005), C. siberiensis Sokolov, 1948, C. rex Tapanila, 2002, and C. alamo Tapanila, 2006. Tubes of C. siberiensis, C. rex, and C. alamo are conical, narrow basally, unlike the parallel-sided C. tapanilai ichnosp. nov. The diameter of C. tapanilai (0.4–1.3 mm) contrasts with the larger tubes of C. alamo (2.5–12.8 mm) and C. rex (up to 5 mm), whereas the smaller tubes of C. ferganensis range from 0.05–0.4 mm in diameter according to Tapanila (2002). Only C. siberiensis has a tube diameter (0.3–0.9 mm according to Stel 1976) overlapping that of C. tapanilai in diameter. However, as previously noted this species is conical and furthermore the tubes are described as being sinuous in longitudinal sections whereas those of C. tapanilai are straight.

  • Host symbionts for previously described species of Chaetosalpinx include rugose and tabulate corals (Tapanila 2005: table 1) as well as stromatoporoid sponges (Tapanila 2006). This Ordovician (Caradoc)-Devonian (Givetian) ichnogenus has not been described previously in bryozoans. Perhaps the closest similarity among bryozoans is with an un-named bioclaustration described from mid-Cretaceous cyclostomes (Taylor and Voigt 2006). This has a similar diameter to C. tapanilai but is distinctly funnel shaped rather than cylindrical. Incipient tubular bioclaustrations are present in some Recent bryozoans growing around symbiotic spionid worms and tanaiid crustaceans (see below).

  • Fig. 5.

    Cylindrical embedment trace (bioclaustration) Chaetosalpinx tapanilai ichnosp. nov., Middle Devonian (Lower Givetian) of the Rhenish Massif, north-western Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. A. Paratype SMF 21.115, colony surface of fistuliporid bryozoan Stellatoides muellertchensis gen. et sp. nov. showing tubes of C. tapanilai. B. Paratype SMF 21.122, tangential section of tubes of C. tapanilai. C. Holotype SMF 21.118, longitudinal section of a tube.


    Fig. 6.

    Spionid polychaete symbionts in the Recent cheilostome bryozoan Celleporaria brunnea (Hincks, 1884), Point Loma, San Diego, California. A. Living associations showing two long palps emerging from a spionid tube (arrowed), shorter tentacles of the bryozoan and black opercula. B. Spionid palps extending above level of bryozoan lophophores. C. Scanning electron microscope of bleached colony (NHM 2010.11.30.1) showing numerous spionid worm bioclaustrations varying in shape and size but consistently larger than the bryozoan orifices and new buds. D. Scanning electron micrograph of dried, unbleached colony showing mud tube constructed by a spionid worm surrounded by calcareous tube formed by the bioclaustrating bryozoan (NHM 2010.11.30.1).



    Colony shape.—Stellatoides muellertchensis sp. nov. developed encrusting colonies, commonly with multiple secondary overgrowths. This colony shape is broadly distributed among fistuliporine cystoporates (Utgaard 1983: 380). However, many colonies of S. muellertchensis are more unusual in being goblet-shaped with extensive encrusting bases and expanded distal edges (Fig. 3A). These colonies are up to 11 cm high and 5.5 cm wide, and some bifurcate. The inner walls are smooth, and it is likely that the colonies grew around ephemeral substrates which decayed after death.

    Deposits at the type locality in which S. muellertchensis is found are dominantly marls and siltstones. The environment in which these bryozoans lived was a quiet basin of soft substrates. Encrusting bryozoans are generally poor competitors for space and consequently tend to occur more commonly and abundantly on ephemeral rather than more permanent substrates (McKinney and Jackson 1989). Together with another cystoporate bryozoan, Fistuliphragma gracilis Ernst, 2008, S. muellertchensis is the only encrusting bryozoan species in the assemblage from the Müllertchen Quarry (Ernst 2008). Like S. muellertchensis, F. gracilis occurs mainly in the form of hollow tubes (cavariiform colonies), which were also probably developed around an ephemeral substrate. Other bryozoans from Müllertchen Quarry are erect and branched (Cliotrypa, Leioclema, Intrapora, Acanthoclema, and Streblotrypella), or erect and reticulate (diverse fenestrates). Tubes of Fistuliphragma gracilis are of consistent size, so it can be inferred that this bryozoan encrusted only a certain type of living substrate. The same assumption can be made for Stellatoides muellertchensis. Among 13 studied colonies, only two are freely encrusting, the rest being goblet-shaped. Identification of “soft-bodied” substrates is sometimes possible based on bioimmured textures (e.g., Rohr and Boucot 1989; Taylor 1990) but no bioimmurations are visible in S. muellertchensis and F. gracilis. In general, bryozoans are capable of using any suitable (stable) substrates that are available (Hageman et al. 2000). However, substrate preferences have been documented for some epibiotic bryozoans (Stebbing 1971, 1972; Barnes 1994, 1995). Various soft-bodied organisms can act as hosts for epibiotic bryozoans, including hydroids, ascidian tunicates, sponges, soft worm tubes, vascular plants and algae (e.g., Hayward 1980; Hageman et al. 2000; Kocak et al. 2002).

    Maculae.—Maculae of Stellatoides muellertchensis contrast with those of most other bryozoans. They are 2.8–12.0 mm long, 1.0–2.9 mm wide and 0.6–1.0 mm deep, and spaced regularly on the colony surface. The centre of each macula consists of broad, flat vesicles, surrounded by 8–20 rays giving the distinct stellate shape. Maculae edges are elevated so that areas between maculae are depressed (Fig. 3B). In goblet-shaped colonies, maculae are more rounded near the colony base, becoming longer and more narrow near the edge of the goblet. This may be an adaptation to different hydrodynamic conditions at different levels of the water column above the boundary layer. The shape and dimensions of maculae in encrusting colonies could not be observed, but they are at least as deep as those in goblet shaped colonies, as observed in longitudinal thin sections.

    The stellate shape of maculae is unique for S. muellertchensis in the family Fistuliporidae. However, greater similarities are evident with the maculae of bryozoans from the family Constellariidae, including Constellaria Dana, 1846 from the Ordovician of the USA, and Revalopora Vinassa de Regny, 1921 from the Ordovician of Estonia. However, the rays in constellariid maculae are commonly formed from bifoliate ridges, whereas rays in Stellatoides are formed by loosely packed autozooecia. Similar constructions can also be observed in colonies of the Devonian genus Botryllopora Nicholson, 1874 and the Silurian genus Inconobotopora Tang and Cuffey, 1998. These disc-shaped cystoporates have central clusters of vesicles surrounded by ridges with autozooecia arranged in stellate patterns. Stellate maculae also occur in other stenolaemates groups including the trepostomes (Key et al. 2002) in response to the development of colony wide feeding currents (Key et al. 2011).

    Bioclaustration.—Colonial animals such as bryozoans, corals and sponges frequently harbour symbionts. The inherent plasticity in colony growth and the fact that colonial animals are able to sustain partial mortality (i.e., death of some but not all zooids) makes them particularly suitable as hosts for smaller symbionts. The discovery of symbiont bioclaustrations in a Devonian bryozoan is therefore not totally unexpected. Indeed, it is perhaps surprising that more such bioclaustrations have not been recorded in fossil bryozoans. Bioclaustrations previously reported in fossil bryozoans include only the ichnogenera Catellocaula Palmer and Wilson, 1988, found in Ordovician trepostomes, and Caupokeras McKinney, 2009, an inferred hydroid bioclaustration in Devonian fenestrates. In addition, un-named bioclaustrations have been described in Cretaceous cheilostomes (Voigt 1955; Ernst 1985) and cyclostomes (Taylor and Voigt 2006). The discovery and description of Chaetosalpinx tapanilai ichnosp. nov. in a Devonian cystoporate bryozoan therefore adds significantly to our knowledge of bryozoan bioclaustrations, as well as providing the first example in a cystoporate bryozoan.

    Modern analogues of C. tapanilai can be found in some Recent cheilostomes and cyclostomes, although these structures have yet to be fully described. Taylor (1991) reported the occurrence of small tubes within colonies of Disporella gordoni Taylor, Schembri, and Cook, 1989, a cyclostome bryozoan often living symbiotically with hermit crabs in New Zealand. The tubes have diameters of 1–6 mm and are distributed randomly with respect to the exhalent water outlets (monticular maculae) found in this cyclostome bryozoan. Some of the tubes are occupied by tanaidacean crustaceans, others by spionid polychaetes. Similar infestation of a cheilostome bryozoan, Celleporaria brunnea (Hincks, 1884), was recently observed by one of us (PDT) in southern California (Fig. 6). In this case the tubes were all occupied by spionids and were made of bryozoan skeleton, with a planar spherulitic fabric characteristic of an exterior wall secreted against a cuticle, built around the tubes of agglutinated mud constructed by the spionids themselves. The two feeding tentacles (peristomial palps) of the spionids maintained a sweeping motion above the level of the bryozoan tentacle crowns, occasionally contacting a bryozoan tentacle and sometimes eliciting retraction of the tentacle crown. Some of the tube apertures are elliptical, others dumbbell-shaped accommodating both limbs of the U-shaped mud tube of the spionid (Fig. 6D).

    Spionids are suspension feeders and may potentially compete with the host bryozoan for food, occupying space where feeding zooids would otherwise have been located. Unlike symbiotic hydroids, which have been shown to be beneficial to their host bryozoans because of the protection afforded by their nematocysts (e.g., Osman and Haugsness 1981), it unclear how spionids can benefit their hosts. Therefore, the symbiosis is more likely to be parasitic than mutualistic.

    Another spionid, Polydora villosa, can form bioclaustrations (described as “burrows” ) in modern corals belonging to the genera Montipora and Porites (Liu and Hsieh 2000). These traces are U-shaped, the proximal part being a boring that cuts through the coral skeleton but the distal part developing as a bioclaustration simultaneously with upward growth of the host coral. Like the spionids hosted by bryozoans, the host coral secretes a calcareous lining around the mud tube made by the worm. Similarly, Lewis (1998) has described examples of the spionid Dipolydora armata inhabiting colonies of Millepora complanata. This hydrozoan coral also secretes tubes around the worms that project above the colony surface. While it would be stretching the available evidence too far to attribute the trace fossil Chaetosalpinx unequivocally to the activities of spionid worms, these modern symbioses involving colonial host organisms do provide plausible ecological analogues which help in understanding this Ordovician-Devonian trace fossil.


    We thank Robert Leunissen (Nideggen-Wollersheim, Germany) for the donation and loan of material, and we are grateful to the late Wolfgang Reimers (Kiel, Germany) for his assistance in preparing the thin sections. We also appreciate helpful reviews and comments of Marcus Key (Dickinson College, Carlisle, USA) and Hans Arne Nakrem (Natural History Museum, Oslo, Norway). Tom Deméré (San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, USA) and Beth Okamura (Natural History Museum, London, UK) helped in the collection and study of the modern bryozoans hosting spionid worm symbionts. AE thanks the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support (DFG project ER 278/4.1 and 2). This paper is a contribution to IGCP 596.


    1. A. Almela and J. Revilla 1950. Especies fósiles nuevas del Devoniano de León. Notas y Communicaciones del Instituto Geológico y Minero de España 20: 45–60. Google Scholar

    2. G.G. Astrova 1964. New Order of Paleozoic Bryozoa [in Russian], Paleontologičeskij žurnal 1: 22–31. Google Scholar

    3. D.K.A. Barnes 1994. Communities of epibiota on two erect species of Antarctic Bryozoa. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 74: 863–872. Google Scholar

    4. D.K.A. Barnes 1995. Epibiotic communities on sublittoral macroinvertebrates at Signy island, Antarctica. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 75: 689–703. Google Scholar

    5. R.T. Becker 2005. Correlation of the proposed Middle Devonian Substage with the global ammonoid record. In: E.A. Yolkin, O.T. Izokh, O.T. Obut, and T.P. Kipriyanova (eds.), Devonian terrestrial and marine environments: from shelf to continent (IGCP 499 Project /SDS Joint field meeting): Contributions of International Conference. 6 pp. Publishing House of SB RAS, “Geo”, Novosibirsk. Google Scholar

    6. R.T. Becker 2007. Correlation of the proposed Middle Givetian Substage with the global ammonoid record. Subcommission on Devonian Stratigraphy, Newsletter 22: 17–23. Google Scholar

    7. F.P. Bigey 1983. Devonian, a transitional period for bryozoans. Terra Cognita 3: 210. Google Scholar

    8. J. Bohatý 2005. Bactrocrinites (Crinoidea) aus den Mittel-Devon der Eifel (linksrheinisches Schiefergebirge, Deutschland)—Taxonomie, Biostratigraphie und Fazieskontrolle. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 235: 381–410. Google Scholar

    9. J. Bohatý 2012. Revision of the flexible crinoid genus Ammonicrinus and a new hypothesis on its life mode. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 56: 615–639. Google Scholar

    10. J. Bohatý , W.I. Ausich , E. Nardin , C. Nyhuis , and S. Schröder 2012. Coral-crinoid biocoenosis and resulting trace fossils from the Middle Devonian of the Eifel Synclines (Rhenish Massif, Germany). Journal of Paleontology 86: 282–301. Google Scholar

    11. F. Borg 1926. Studies on recent cyclostomatous Bryozoa. Zoologiska Bidrag fran Uppsala 10: 181–507. Google Scholar

    12. J. Crockford 1947. Bryozoa from the Lower Carboniferous of New South Wales and Queensland. Proceedings of the New South Wales Linnean Society 72: 1–48. Google Scholar

    13. R.J. Cuffey and F.K. McKinney 1979. Devonian Bryozoa. Special Papers in Palaeontology 23: 307–311. Google Scholar

    14. J.D. Dana 1846. Zoophytes. In : United States Exploring Expedition. 1838–42, under the command of Charles Wilkes, 7. 740 pp. C. Sherman, Philadelphia. Google Scholar

    15. C.G. Ehrenberg 1831. Animalia invertebrata exclusis insects. Symbolae Physicae, seu Icones et descriptiones Corporum Naturalium novorum aut minus cognitorum. Pars Zoologica 4: 1–831. Google Scholar

    16. A. Ernst 2008. Trepostome and cryptostome bryozoans from the Koněprusy Limestone (Lower Devonian, Pragian) of Zlatý Kůň (Czech Republic). Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 114: 329–348. Google Scholar

    17. A. Ernst and P. Königshof 2010. Bryozoan fauna and microfacies from a Middle Devonian reef complex (Western Sahara, Morocco). Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 568: 1–91. Google Scholar

    18. H. Ernst 1985. Biomuration [sic] of folliculinids in Upper Cretaceous cheilostome Bryozoa. In: C. Nielsen and G.P. Larwood (eds.), Bryozoa: Ordovician to Recent , 345. Olsen and Olsen, Fredensborg. Google Scholar

    19. P. Faber 1980. Fazies-Gliederung und -Entwicklung im Mittel-Devon der Eifel (Rheinisches Schiefergebirge). Mainzer geowissenschaftliche Mitteilungen 8: 83–149. Google Scholar

    20. F. Frech 1886–1887. Die Cyathophylliden und Zaphrentiden des deutschen Mitteldevon, eingeleitet durch den Versuch einer Gliederung desselben. Palaeontologische Abhandlungen 3: 117–233. Google Scholar

    21. G.A. Goldfuss 1826–1844. Petrefacta Germaniae tam ea, quae in museo universitatis regiae Borussicae Fridericiae Wilhelmiae Rhenanae servantur, quam alia quaecunque in Museis Hoeninghusiano, Muensteriano aliisque extant iconibus et descriptionibus illustrate (Abbildungen und Beschreibungen der Petrefacten Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Länder, unter Mitwirkung des Herrn Grafen Georg zu Münster, herausgegeben von Dr. Aug. Goldfuss). 1 (1826–33): Divisio secunda: Radiariorum Reliquiae - Strahlenthiere der Vorwelt , 115–221. Arnz and Co., Düsseldorf. Google Scholar

    22. S.J. Hageman , N.P. James , and Y. Bone 2000. Cool-water carbonate production from epizoic bryozoans on ephemeral substrates. Palaios 15: 33–48. Google Scholar

    23. J. Hall and G.B. Simpson 1887. Corals and Bryozoa from the Lower Heldelber. Upper Heldelberg and Hamilton Groups. Geological Survey of the State of New York 6: 98, 265–288. Google Scholar

    24. P.J. Hayward 1980. Invertebrate epiphytes of coastal marine algae. In . J.H. Price, D.E.G. Irvine, and W.F. Farnham (eds.), The Shore Environment. Volume 2, Ecosystems. The Systematics Association Special Volume 17: 761–787. Google Scholar

    25. T. Hincks 1884. Report on the Polyzoa of the Queen Charlotte Islands, 3. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (5), 13: 49–58. Google Scholar

    26. A.S. Horowitz and J.F. Pachut 1993. Specific, generic, and familial diversity of Devonian bryozoans. Journal of Paleontology 67: 42–52. Google Scholar

    27. A.S. Horowitz , J.F. Pachut , and R.L. Anstey 1996. Devonian bryozoan diversity, extinctions and originations. Journal of Paleontology 70: 373–380. Google Scholar

    28. E.E. Hotz, W. Kräusel, and W. Struve 1955. Die Kalkmulden von Hillesheim und Ahrdorf. In : K. Krömmelbein, E.E. Hotz, W. Kräusel, and W. Struve (eds.). Zur Geologie der Eifelkalkmulden. Beiheft Geologisches Jahrbuch 17: 45–192. Google Scholar

    29. M.M. Key Jr ., L. Thrane , and J.A. Collins 2002. Functional morphology of maculae in a giant ramose bryozoan from the Permian of Greenland. In : P.N. Wyse Jackson, C.J. Buttler, and M.E. Spencer Jones (eds.), Bryozoan Studies 2001 , 163–170. Balkema, Lisse. Google Scholar

    30. M.M. Key Jr ., P.N. Wyse Jackson , and L.J. Vitiello 2011. Stream channel network analysis applied to colony-wide feeding structures in a Permian bryozoan from Greenland. Paleobiology 37: 287–302. Google Scholar

    31. D. Korn 2008. Rheinische Masse. Geologische Übersicht. In: Deutsche Stratigraphische Kommission (ed.), Stratigraphie von Deutschland VIII, Devon. Schriftenreihe der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geowissenschaften 52: 1–116. Google Scholar

    32. F. Kocak , A. Balduzzi , and H.A. Benli 2002. Epiphytic bryozoan community of Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile meadow in northern Cyprus (Eastern Mediterranean). Indian Journal of Marine Sciences 31: 235–238. Google Scholar

    33. W. Krebs 1974. Devonian carbonate complexes of Central Europe. In : L.F. Laporte (eds.), Reefs in Time and Space. Special Publication of the Society Economic Paleontology and Mineralogy 18: 155–208. Google Scholar

    34. J.B. Lewis 1998. Reproduction, larval development and functional relationships of the burrowing spionid polychaete Dipolydora armata with the calcareous hydrozoan Millepora complanata. Marine Biology 130: 651–662. Google Scholar

    35. P.-J. Liu and H.L. Hsieh 2000. Burrow architecture of the spionid polychaete Polydora villosa in the corals Montipora and Porites. Zoological Studies 39: 47–54. Google Scholar

    36. F.K. McKinney 2009. Bryozoan-hydroid symbiosis and a new ichnogenus, Caupokeras. Ichnos 16: 193–201. Google Scholar

    37. F.K. McKinney and J.B.C. Jackson 1989. Bryozoan Evolution. 238 pp. Unwin Hyman, Boston. Google Scholar

    38. W. Meyer , J. Stoltidis , and J. Winter 1977. Geologische Exkursion in den Raum Weyer-Schuld-Heyroth-Niederehe-Üxheim-Ahütte. Decheniana 130: 322–334. Google Scholar

    39. H.A. Nicholson 1874. Descriptions of new fossils from the Devonian Formation of Canada West. Geological Magazine 1: 51–96. Google Scholar

    40. R.W. Osman and J.A. Haugsness 1981. Mutualism among sessile invertebrates. Science 211: 846–848. Google Scholar

    41. T.J. Palmer and M.A. Wilson 1988. Parasitism of Ordovician bryozoans and the origin of pseudoborings. Palaeontology 31: 939–949. Google Scholar

    42. E. Paproth and W. Struve 1982. Bemerkungen zur Entwicklung des Givetium am Niederrhein. Paläogeographischer Rahmen der Bohrung Schwarzbachtal 1. Senckenbergiana lethaea 63: 359–376. Google Scholar

    43. D.M. Rohr and A.J. Boucot 1989. Xenomorphism, bioimmuration, and biologic substrates: An example from the Cretaceous of Brazil. Lethaia 22: 213–215. Google Scholar

    44. F.A. Römer 1848. Über eine neue Art der Gattung Blumenbachium (König) und mehrere unzweifelhafte Spongien in obersilurischen Kalkschichten der Grafschaft Decatur im Staate Tennessee in Nord-Amerika. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde 1848: 680–886. Google Scholar

    45. E.F. von Schlotheim 1820. Die Petrefactenkunde auf ihrem jetzigen Standpunkte durch die Beschreibung seiner Sammlung versteinerter und fossiler Überreste des Thier- und Pflanzenreichs der Vorwelt erläutert. 437 pp. Beckersche Buchhandlung, Gotha. Google Scholar

    46. L.J.T. Schultze 1866. Monographie der Echinodermen des Eifler Kalkes. Carl Gerold's Sohn, Wien. 118 p. (Presented at the Sitzung der mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Classe, 07.12.1865 via E. Suess; as well as published in Schultze, L.J.T. 1867. Monographie der Echinodermen des Eifler Kalkes. Denkschrift der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 26: 113–230). Google Scholar

    47. G.B. Simpson 1897. A handbook of the genera of the North American Paleozoic Bryozoa. 14th Annual Report of the State Geologist (of New York) for the year 1894: 407–608. Google Scholar

    48. B.S. Sokolov 1948. Commensalism in favositids [in Russian]. Izvestiâ Akademii Nauk SSSR, Seriâ Biologičeskaâ 1: 101–110. Google Scholar

    49. A.R.D. Stebbing 1971. The epizoic fauna of Flustra foliacea (Bryozoa). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 51: 283–174. Google Scholar

    50. A.R.D. Stebbing 1972. Preferential settlement of a bryozoan and serpulid larvae on the younger parts of Laminaria fronds. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 52: 765–772. Google Scholar

    51. F.F. Steininger and W.E. Piller 1999. Empfehlungen (Richtlinien) zur Handhabung der stratigraphischen Nomenklatur. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 209: 1–19. Google Scholar

    52. J.H. Stel 1976. The Paleozoioc hard substrate trace fossils Helicosalpinx, Chaetosalpinx and Torquaysalpinx. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatschefte 1976: 726–744. Google Scholar

    53. W. Struve 1961. Das Eifeler Korallen-Meer - Mineralogische und geologische Streifzüge durch die nördliche Eifel. Aufschluβ, Sonderheft 10: 81–107. Google Scholar

    54. W. Struve 1982. The Eifelian within the Devonian frame, history, boundaries, definitions. In : W. Ziegler and R. Werner (eds.), On Devonian Stratigraphy and Palaeontology of the Ardenno-Rhenish Mountains and Related Devonian Matters, 401–432. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 55: 1–498. Google Scholar

    55. W. Struve 1992. Neues zur Stratigraphie und Fauna des rhenotypen Mittel-Devon. Senckenbergiana lethaea 71: 503–624. Google Scholar

    56. W. Struve 1996a. Brachiopoden, Rheinisches Schiefergebirge. In : K. Weddige (ed.), Devon-Korrelationstabelle. Senckenbergiana lethaea 76: 280, tab. B120dm96. Google Scholar

    57. W. Struve 1996b. Eifel (Venn, Bergisches Land). In : K. Weddige (ed.), Devon-Korrelationstabelle. Senckenbergiana lethaea 76: 280, tab. R160dm96. Google Scholar

    58. W. Struve 1996c. On Athyris (Brachiopoda) and its type species “Terebratulaconcentrica von Buch. In : F. Alvarez, C.H.C. Brunton, and W. Struve (eds.), Beiträge zur Kenntnis devonischer Brachiopoden 26. Senckenbergiana lethaea 76: 65–105. Google Scholar

    59. W. Struve and R. Werner 1982. The Lower/Middle Devonian boundary and the Eifelian Stage in the “Type Eifelian” region. In : G. Plodowski, R. Werner, and W. Ziegler (eds.). Field meeting on Lower and Lower Middle Devonian stages in the Ardenno-Rhenish type area, guidebook , 81–151. Senckenbergische naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main. Google Scholar

    60. S. Tang and R.J. Cuffey 1998. Inconobotopora lichenoporoides, a new genus and species of cystoporate bryozoan from the Silurian of land, and its evolutionary implication. Journal of Paleontology 72: 256–264. Google Scholar

    61. L. Tapanila 2002. A new endosymbiont in Late Ordovician tabulate corals from Anticosti Island, eastern Canada. Ichnos 9: 109–116. Google Scholar

    62. L. Tapanila 2005. Palaeoecology and diversity of endosymbionts in Palaeozoic marine invertebrates: trace fossil evidence. Lethaia 38: 89–99. Google Scholar

    63. L. Tapanila 2006. Macroborings and bioclaustrations in a Late Devonian reef above the Alamo Impact Breccia, Nevada, USA. Ichnos 13: 129–134. Google Scholar

    64. L. Tapanila and A.A. Ekdale 2007. Early history of symbiosis in living substrates: trace-fossil evidence from the marine record. In . W. Miller III (ed.), Trace Fossils , 345–355. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Google Scholar

    65. P.D. Taylor 1990. Preservation of soft-bodied and other organisms by bioimmuration—a review. Palaeontology 33: 1–17. Google Scholar

    66. P.D. Taylor 1991. Observations on symbiotic associations of bryozoans and hermit crabs from the Otago Shelf of New Zealand. Bulletin Societe Science Naturelle Ouest France, Mémoire H.S. 1: 487–495. Google Scholar

    67. P.D. Taylor and E. Voigt 2006. Symbiont bioclaustrations in Cretaceous cyclostome bryozoans. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 257: 131–136. Google Scholar

    68. P.D. Taylor , P.J. Schembri , and P.L. Cook 1989. Symbiotic associations between hermit crabs and bryozoans from the Otago region, southeastern New Zealand. Journal of Natural History 23: 1059–1085. Google Scholar

    69. E.O. Ulrich 1882. American Palaeozoic Bryozoa. The Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History 5: 233–257. Google Scholar

    70. J. Utgaard 1983. Paleobiology and taxonomy of the Order Cystoporata. In : R.A. Robison (ed.). Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part G (1): Bryozoa (revised), G327–G439. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. Google Scholar

    71. P. Vinassa de Regny 1921. Sulla classificazione die trepostomidi. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali 59: 212–231. Google Scholar

    72. E. Voigt 1955. Artspezifischer Parachorismus (?) von Serpuliden in Kreidebryozoen. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 1/2: 8–20. Google Scholar

    73. R. Walter 1995. Geologie von Mitteleuropa. 566 pp. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart. Google Scholar

    74. M.K. Zapalski 2007. Parasitism versus commensalism: the case of tabulate endobionts. Palaeontology 50: 1375–380. Google Scholar

    Copyright © 2014 A. Ernst et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
    Andrej Ernst, Paul D. Taylor, and Jan Bohatý "A New Middle Devonian Cystoporate Bryozoan from Germany Containing a New Symbiont Bioclaustration," Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 59(1), (6 June 2012).
    Received: 1 December 2010; Accepted: 25 May 2012; Published: 6 June 2012
    11 PAGES

    Back to Top