Translator Disclaimer
5 February 2015 Early Jurassic Anoxia Triggered the Evolution of the Oldest Holoplanktonic Gastropod Coelodiscus minutus by Means of Heterochrony
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The tiny gastropod Coelodiscus minutus is superabundant in concretions of the Early Jurassic Posidonia Shale of South Germany which were formed under anoxic or extremely dysoxic conditions. Previous suggestions that C. minutus was a holoplanktonic organism are corroborated based on new evidence from exceptionally well-preserved specimens. The measurements of shell thickness show that the shell of Coelodiscus is very thin (mean 11 µm). In contrast to previous suggestions, the shell of Coelodiscus was not formed in three ontogenetic phases (embryonic, larval and adult shell) but in two phases comprising an embryonic and a secondary shell, the latter forming during an extended larval phase. Hostile conditions on the sea floor, absence or extreme scarcity of epibenthic animals as well as the small size also argue against a benthic life style of this gastropod. Coelodiscus minutus is the oldest known holoplanktonic gastropod. We speculate that Coelodiscus evolved during the Early Jurassic from a benthic precursor, which had a planktotrophic larval development. Probably under the influence of increasing frequency of dysoxic episodes along with hostile benthic conditions, the larval phase was extended neotenously and eventually, a holoplanktonic species evolved. During the Early Toarcian anoxic event, C. minutus was highly abundant in the plankton and dead shells rained down to the anoxic or dysoxic sea bottom. These thin and fragile shells formed an ooze similar to the pteropod ooze in the modern deep sea. The shells were preserved due to the absence or low level of deposit feeding and bioturbation as well as the formation of early diagenetic concretions.

Introduction

The tiny Early—Middle Jurassic (Pliensbachian—Aalenian) gastropod Coelodiscus minutus (Schübler in Zieten, 1833; family Coelodiscidae Gründel and Nützel in Schulbert and Nützel, 2013) is superabundant in some strata exposed in Central Europe and England. The small (max. diameter ca. 3 mm), low-spired to planispiral specimens are especially abundant and even rock forming in the Early Toarcian oxygen deficient facies of the Posidonia Shale Formation from Germany. There is an ongoing controversy whether C. minutus had an epibenthic (e.g., Etter 1996) or a holoplanktonic mode of life (e.g., Jefferies and Minton 1965; Bandel and Hemleben 1987). The Jurassic genera Coelodiscus Brösamlen, 1909 and Tatediscus Gründel, 2001 form the family Coelodiscidae which ranges from the Early Pliensbachian to the Early Aalenian (Todd and Munt 2010; Schulbert and Nützel 2013). If C. minutus was indeed holoplanktonic, this would represent the earliest example for this mode of life in the class Gastropoda.

In modern oceans, holoplanktonic gastropods, such as pteropods and heteropods, form an important part of the zoo plankton and their shells contribute to oceanic sedimentation to a considerable amount in areas with bottom depths above the aragonite compensation depth (i.e., pteropod ooze; Lalli and Gilmer 1989). Holoplanktonic means that an organism has a planktonic mode of life throughout its entire lifetime. Many modern holoplanktonic shelled pteropods or heteropods have highly derived shells with a tendency to evolve bilateral symmetrical shells as an adaption to active swimming (e.g., Richter 1973). The Recent holoplanktonic gastropods are of low diversity comprising about 140 species but not all of them have shells in the adult stage (Lalli and Gilmer 1989). In these gastropods, the holoplanktonic mode of life is polyphyletic, i.e., it evolved independently in the superorders Caenogastropoda Cox, 1960 (families Janthinidae Lamarck, 1822, Atlantidae Rang, 1829, Carinariidae Blainville, 1818a) and Heterobranchia Burmeister, 1837 (pteropods: Thecosomata and Gymnosomata). The fossil record of these gastropod groups is not older than Late Cretaceous or Cenozoic (the report of Jurassic Carinariidae by Bandel and Hemleben [1987] is refuted here, see below), with the first occurrences in the Eocene (Atlantidae), the Rupelian (Carinariidae), and the Messinian (Janthinidae) (Tracey et al. 1993; Paleobiology Database  http://paleobiodb.org). Some of the Paleocene and Eocene forms previously assigned to Atlantidae have been recently transferred to the benthic family Hipponicidae (Lozouet 2012; Schnetler 2013). The Early Cretaceous genus Bellerophina d'Orbigny, 1843 (family Bellerophinidae Destombes, 1984) was interpreted as an extinct example of the holoplanktonic heteropods (Tracey 2010). Thecosomata originated in the Late Paleocene (Janssen 2003) and Gymnosomata in the late Oligocene (Janssen 2012). Thus, if C. minutus was indeed holoplanktonic, Coelodiscidae would be the oldest example for this mode of life in the class Gastropoda (Bandel and Hemleben 1987).

Besides holoplanktonic gastropods, many marine gastropod species have free-swimming planktonic veliger larvae that metamorphose to benthic adult forms (e.g., Jablonski and Lutz 1983; Nützel 2014).

Based on very well preserved material from the Early Toarcian of Southern Germany, we present new evidence that C. minutus was in fact a holoplanktonic snail. Furthermore, we present evidence that it is not a member of a living heteropod family and propose a hypothesis on the evolution of C. minutus.

Institutional abbreviations.—BSPG, Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Geologie, Munich, Germany.

Other abbreviations.—TOC, total organic carbon.

Material and methods

The studied material comes from a layer with calcareous concretions of the Posidonia Shale Formation (Lower Toarcian), collected from a temporary outcrop in the city of Altdorf near Nuremberg (Northern Bavaria, Southern Germany). This level of concretions is called informally “Zweier-Laibsteine” (Harpoceras falcifer Ammonite Zone, Harpoceras elegans Subzone). Generally, several limestone horizons occur throughout the Posidonia Shale Formation (e.g., Röhl et al. 2001) and long-distance correlation of the horizon in Northern Bavaria that yielded the studied material is difficult. However, it is most likely that it can be assigned to the so-called “Oberer Stein” in the profile discussed by Röhl et al. (2001). The studied limestone is dark and highly fossiliferous, containing abundant ammonites, superabundant shells of C. minutus as well as bivalves and vertebrate remains.

For the preparation of fossils, the material was coarsely fractured using a jaw crusher. In a second step, it was alternately stored in water for 12 h, removed, frozen and submerged in hot water. This procedure was repeated 10 times to enhance the break-off of fossils in a second, finer fracturing with the jaw crusher. The resulting rock debris was washed, sieved (2 mm, 0.5 mm, and 0.125 mm mesh size), the residues were picked for fossils and well-preserved specimens were studied with a CamScan SEM. In addition, fractured rock surfaces were covered with ammonium chloride and studied with a Leica M420 macroscope equipped with a DFC 320 camera. Several thin sections were prepared in order to gain information on lithology and microfacies using a Zeiss Axiophot equipped with a MRc5 camera. Thin sections were also used to measure the thickness of the shell wall in in relation to specimen size. Measurements were taken from sections approximately perpendicular to the shell surface from calibrated images of the thin sections using the software Zeiss AxioVision 4.8. The linear increase of the shell thickness with body size was indicated by linear bivariate modelling with Ordinary Least Squares Regression in PAST3 (Hammer et al. 2001), once using the original measurement data and once using the log-transformed data. To measure the total organic carbon (TOC) of the rocks, samples were decarbonized using hydrochloric acid (10%) and analysis of organic carbon was performed with an elemental analyser (CE 1110) connected online to a ThermoFinnigan Delta V Plus mass spectrometer. Accuracy and reproducibility of the analyses was checked by replicate analyses of jon 1 standard. Reproducibility was better than ±0.03% (1α). The apatite-preserved vertebrate fauna was gained by dissolving 0.7 kg rock material in acetic acid (10%) and the residue was studied with the SEM.

Results

The limestone concretions yield two lithologies. The main facies is an ammonite floatstone with a grain-supported matrix of highly abundant C. minutus shells and fecal pellets (Coelodiscus/fecal pellet grainstone). This grainstone is cemented by a sparry calcite that fills also the ammonites (Fig. 1A). This dominant grainstone facies alternates with layers that are mud-supported (mud- and wackestone). The second and subordinate facies type in the concretions is a distinctly laminated mudstone with bivalve filaments and abundant fish remains. The ammonite floatstone has a TOC of 0.30–0.36% (n = 5). The laminated mudstone has a TOC of 2.30–2.82% (n = 5).

Fig. 1.

The lithology of the limestone concretion, Posidonia Shale Formation, Lower Toarcian; Altdorf near Nuremberg, Northern Bavaria, Southern Germany. A. BSPG 2008 XXIX 11a, ammonite floatstone with grain-supported matrix consisting of the holoplanktonic gastropod Coelodiscus minutus (Schübler in Zieten, 1833) and fecal pellets, cemented by sparry calcite. Each of the small bright dots represents a juvenile specimen of C. minutus. B. BSPG 2008 XXIX 5a, surface of the ammonite floatstone with superabundant specimens of C. minutus.

F01_00.jpg

Coelodiscns minutus is superabundant in the limestone concretions (Figs. 1A, B, 2A). The originally aragonitic shells of all molluscs, including C. minutus, are replaced by calcite. The preservation of C. minutus is excellent including preservation of the protoconch (embryonic shell) and fine ornamental details. Coelodiscns minutus is as wide as ca. 3 mm (ca. 5 whorls) but most specimens are much smaller (less than 0.5 mm). The shells are low-spired to almost planispiral and wider than high. The spire is usually elevated but specimens with plane or somewhat depressed spire are also known (Fig. 2B, C). The protoconch (embryonic shell) consists of somewhat less than one whorl and has a diameter of 175 µm ±2.2 µm SE (n = 13). It is largely smooth with a faint pitted ornament on its initial part and the transition to the teleoconch is abrupt (Fig. 2D). The teleoconch whorls are ornamented with fine spiral lirae separated by wide interspaces (Fig. 2E). The growth lines are opisthocyrt with the backmost point situated in an adapical direction (Fig. 2F). Some of the specimens show growth abnormalities (Fig. 2G, H). The teleoconch whorls are convex as is the base of the whorls. The base is deeply umbilicated. The shell sculpture is also visible with the very small specimens, thus ensuring an attribution to C. minutus (Fig. 2I). The shell thickness inferred from thin sections ranges 2–41 µm (mean = 11.3 µm ±0.5 µm SE, n = 132) and shows a statistically significant correlation (pperm = 0.001) with the diameter of the shells : the larger the specimen, the thicker the shell (Fig. 3A, B).

The ammonites represent specimens of the genus Harpoceras Waagen, 1869. In addition, numerous bivalve prodissoconchs (planktonic larval shells) are present. They are always articulated and represent pteriomorphs (Fig. 4A). The limestone concretions contain also few larger bivalves (Meleagrinella substriata [Münster in Goldfuss, 1831] [Fig. 4B] and specimens representing the genus Oxytoma Meek, 1864 [Fig. 4C], both superorder Pteriomorphia). The acetic acid dissolved sample of 0.7 kg rock yielded ca. 300 g vertebrate remains (fish remains, teeth, bones, etc.) representing mainly the fish Lepidotes elvensis Blainville, 1818b.

Discussion

Three Early Jurassic gastropod taxa have been identified as being probably holoplanktonic: Coelodiscus minutus, the species of Tatediscus (both family Coelodiscidae), and Pterotrachea liassica Bandel and Hemleben, 1987 (probably a junior synonym of Ammonites ceratophagus Quenstedt, 1858). The latter taxon represents a larval shell whose modern counterpart is present in the living heteropod genus Pterotrachea Forsskål in Niebuhr, 1775 (Bandel and Hemleben 1987). Among these Jurassic holoplanktonic gastropods, C. minutus is best known and most abundant, especially in the Early Toarcian Posidonia Shale deposited under oxygen depleted conditions.

Since it is thin-shelled, small and primarily aragonitic, it is preferably preserved in early diagenetic limestone concretions (Bandel and Knitter 1983; Röhl 1998). However, it was probably present throughout the entire deposition of the Posidonia Shale as is indicated by the presence of pyritic internal moulds from shells of this species (Riegraf et al. 1984). Etter (1996) and Schulbert and Nützel (2013) showed that C. minutus ranges to the Aalenian (early Middle Jurassic) in Switzerland and Northern Bavaria. Extensive sampling of Late Pliensbachian grey shale (Amaltheenton Formation) of Northern Bavaria showed that C. minutus is absent until the Early Toarcian onset of oxygen depleted sediments of the Posidonia Shale Formation (AN personal observation). Coelodiscus minutus has also been reported from Northern and Southern Germany (Röhl 1998) and from the bituminous Lower Toarcian shales of England (Hallam 1967; Morris 1979). Another species of the genus Coelodiscus, Coelodiscus wrightianus Tate in Tate and Blake, 1876, has been reported from the Early Pliensbachian (Prodactylioceras davoei Ammonite Zone) of England together with the species of Tatediscus which represent another possible example of planktonic gastropods (Todd and Munt 2010). An unidentified species representing Coelodiscus or Tatediscus has also been reported from the Early Pliensbachian of Argentina (Gründel 2001). However, the preservation quality of these specimens is not sufficient to make a statement of their potential mode of life. Though a holoplanktonic mode of life cannot be excluded, it would also be possible that those organisms represent benthic precursors, which had a planktotrophic larval development. The holoplanktonic mode of life could have evolved in response to local hostile bottom conditions and proliferation of holoplanktonic gastropods was eventually enhanced by widespread anoxia in the Early Toarcian. The youngest species assigned to Coelodiscus is Coelodiscus sadharaensis Szabo and Jaitly, 2004 from the Callovian—Oxfordian of Western India (Szabo and Jaitly 2004). However, this species is very large (diameter 10 mm) compared with C. minutus and the attribution to the genus Coelodiscus needs corroboration.

Fig. 2.

Occurrence and morphology of the holoplanktonic gastropod Coelodiscus minutus (Schübler in Zieten, 1833), Posidonia Shale Formation, Lower Toarcian; Altdorf near Nuremberg, Northern Bavaria, Southern Germany. A. BSPG 2008 XXIX 36a, superabundance in the limestone concretions. B. BSPG 2008 XXIX 56f. lowspired shell, wider than high. C. BSPG 2008 XXIX 42a. elevated but somewhat depressed spire. D. BSPG 2008 XXIX 26a, abrupt transition from protoconch to teleoconch. E. BSPG 2008 XXIX 56c, fine spiral lirae separated by wide interspaces. F. BSPG 2008 XXIX 56a, opisthocyrt growth lines with the backmost point situated in adapical direction. G. BSPG 2008 XXIX 24a, growth abnormality represented by loss of ornamentation. H. BSPG 2008 XXIX 42c, growth abnormality represented by a swell of the shell. I. BSPG 2008 XXIX 62c, small specimen with well-preserved sculpture ensuring an attribution to C. minutus.

F02_00.jpg

Fig. 3.

Correlation between the shell thickness and shell diameter; by linear bivariate modelling using Ordinary Least Squares Regression in PAST3 (Hammer et al. 2001). A. The data show that the shell of Coelodiscus minutus is generally very thin and shows a linear increase with shell diameter; this linear increase is generally typical of shelled molluscs and is also present in modern holoplanktonic gastropods. B. The log-transformed data of the original measurements confirm the linear increase with shell diameter. Abbreviations: N, number of bootstrap replicates; n, number of measured specimens; R2, coefficient of correlation; pperm, permutation test on correlation (R2), using 9999 replicates.

F03_00.jpg

The mode of life of Coelodiscus.—Several authors advocated a holoplanktonic mode of life for C. minutus mainly because it occurs predominantly in sediments which formed under anoxic or heavily oxygen depleted conditions (Jefferies and Minton 1965; Bandel and Knitter 1983; 1986; Bandel and Hemleben 1987; Röhl 1998). Others assumed that it had a benthic life style (Quenstedt 1858; Einsele and Moosebach 1955; Kauffman 1981; Urlichs et al. 1994; Etter 1996). Traditionally, the Posidonia Shale Formation has been interpreted as a stagnant, anoxic basin sediment and there can be still little doubt that oxygen availability in bottom waters was generally low as is indicated by various sedimentological and palaeontological criteria (black-shale facies, high TOC and pyrite content, lamination, low levels of bioturbation, absence or low diversity of benthic macro fauna, etc. [Röhl and Schmid-Röhl 2005]). However, fluctuations in oxygen concentration are now considered to have played a pivotal role during deposition (Röhl et al. 2001). Although the environmental conditions during the Early Toarcian of Southern Germany were generally oxygen depleted, episodes with somewhat higher oxygen concentrations facilitated the establishment of specialized benthic communities. Therefore, a benthic mode of life was principally possible for C. minutus. Etter (1996) argued that the frequency of C. minutus shells in the Opalinus Clay (Aalenian) of Switzerland is associated with benthic conditions and that this would imply a benthic mode of life for C. minutus. Accordingly, C. minutus was adapted to extremely dysoxic conditions. Similarly, Schulbert and Nützel (2013) showed that C. minutus was still highly abundant (preserved as pyritic steinkerns) in the Late Toarcian of Northern Bavaria just above the Posidonia Shale and subsequently decreased in abundance until the Early Aalenian while diversity of the benthos increased at the same time. However, this does not necessarily imply that C. minutus was benthic. An alternative explanation would be that specimens of C. minutus fell down from the plankton but were preferably preserved when bioturbation and deposit feeding were reduced due to oxygen deficiency. Coelodiscus minutus ooze as present in the concretions studied herein could only form under anoxic or extremely dysaerobic conditions. The calcareous concretion horizons Unterer Stein and Oberer Stein (Lower and Upper Stone) of the Early Toarcian Harpoceras falciferum Ammonite Zone, which commonly consist of superabundant C. minutus shells are considered to represent the episodes with the worst benthic living conditions of the Posidonia Shale (Röhl 1998). The shells of C. minutus are very thin (mean = 11.3 µm ±0.5 µm SE, n = 132) and thus vulnerable to bioturbation, deposit feeding or transport. The mass accumulation and the excellent preservation are easiest to explain by plankton rain and lack of deposit feeding and bioturbation. The relatively low TOC values of 0.30–0.36% can be explained by diagenesis as it is also evident by the calcitic cementation of the Coelodiscus minutus/fecal pellet grainstone.

Besides the superabundant C. minutus, the studied fossil assemblage consists overwhelmingly of nektonic organisms (ammonites, fishes) and planktonic larval shells of bivalves (prodissoconchs) which are clearly pre-metamorphic and have always articulated valves. They represent undoubtedly larval fall. The highly abundant fecal pellets probably derive from nektonic and planktonic organisms. The bivalves Oxytoma sp. and Meleagrinella substriata are rare in the studied assemblage and their concomitant appearance with ammonites could point to a pseudoplanktonic mode of life (Röhl 1998). Röhl (1998) interpreted the life habit of M. substriata as epibenthic or facultative pseudoplanktonic (see also Duff 1975; 1978; Kaim 2001).

Fig. 4.

Fossil content beside the Coelodiscus minutus shells, Posidonia Shale Formation, Lower Toarcian; Altdorf near Nuremberg, Northern Bavaria, Southern Germany. A. BSPG 2008 XXIX 69h, articulated bivalve prodissoconchs of the order Pterioida. B. BSPG 2008 XXIX 1d, valve of the epifaunal bivalve Meleagrinella substriata (Münster in Goldfuss, 1831). C. BSPG 2008 XXIX 2b, valve of the epifaunal bivalve Oxytoma sp.

F04_00.jpg

The fact that C. minutus is small and very thin-shelled supports the assumption of a planktonic mode of life. The assumption that C. minutus might have a very thin shell has been remarked before but lacked corroboration with quantitative measurements (Kauffman 1981; Riegraf et al. 1984). The continuous thickening during growth (Fig. 3) is generally typical for molluscs and has also been shown for modern holoplanktonic gastropods (Lalli and Gillmer 1989). We also showed that C. minutus did not have three ontogenetic stages (embryonic, larval, adult), but two, being an embryonic and a holoplanktonic adult stage, as it also holds for the modern counterparts.

In conclusion, the following arguments account for a planktonic mode of life of C. minutus: (i) the high abundance in anoxic to dysoxic facies, (ii) the presence in fossil assemblages entirely or largely lacking benthic organisms due to unfavourable benthic conditions, (iii) the small size, and (iv) the very thin shell.

Is Coelodiscus a member of the modern holoplanktonic heteropods?—Bandel and Knitter (1983) and Bandel and Hemleben (1987) correctly pointed out that C. minutus (and its junior synonym C. fluegeli) resembles the larval shells of some extant holoplanktonic heteropods and placed C. minutus in the extant family Carinariidae. Spirally ornamented larval shells of some species of the genus Atlanta Lesueur, 1817 (family Atlantidae) are also quite similar. However, the heteropod families Atlantidae and Carinariidae have shells representing three ontogenetic stages: embryonic (protoconch 1), larval (protoconch 2), and adult (teleoconch) shell portions, as it is typical for caenogastropods with planktonic larval development (Nützel 2014). The adult shells (teleoconchs) of shell bearing extant heteropods are disc- or limpet-like (Lalli and Gilmer 1989; Newman 1998). However, Atlanta has a real teleoconch following the larval shell, being planispiral with a prominent keel. This type of tertiary shell is clearly lacking in C. minutus and thus, the shells of modern heteropods as a whole are definitely unlike the shell of C. minutus. Only the larval shell of some modern heteropods resembles C. minutus. By contrast, the shell of C. minutus consists only of two ontogenetic shell portions: a smooth embryonic shell of somewhat less than one whorl and a spirally ornamented shell consisting of several whorls. The size of this shell (up to 3 mm, according to Bandel and Hemleben [1987] even 5 mm) suggests that it is not an isolated larval shell (see Nützel 2014). Fossil larval shells of gastropods older than Cretaceous are usually smaller than 1 mm (Mapes and Nützel 2009; Nützel 2014) and are thus distinctly smaller than fully-grown members of the Coelodiscidae. A tertiary shell portion could not be found in the studied material. However, Bandel and Hemleben (1987: fig. 8) illustrated an alleged transition from a spirally striated larval shell to a smooth teleoconch. This shell is 1.3 mm wide and shows a suture in its terminal part; the shell is largely smooth after this suture. If the spirally ornamented part of this shell was a larval shell it would have a width of 1.2 mm. However, we studied numerous C. minutus shells which are entirely ornamented at a width of 2-3 mm. Therefore the spirally ornamented shell of C. minutus is not a larval shell because it is too large. The C. minutus specimens illustrated by Bandel and Hemleben (1987: figs. 7, 8) which allegedly have post-larval adult shell portions most probably show healed shell fractures with a disturbed morphology of the terminal portion of the shell. Shell anomalies as response to healed fractures were also frequently observed in our samples (Fig. 2G, H). We agree with Bandel and Hemleben (1987) that C. minutus could be related to modern heteropods. However, this genus is not a member of any of the modern heteropod families but represents its own family, Coelodiscidae, as suggested in Schulbert and Nützel (2013). The assignment of Coelodiscidae to a superfamily remains unresolved at this point.

Conclusions

There are three possibilities to interpret the identity of Coelodiscus minutus:

  • Coelodiscus minutus is a vetigastropod, a group of basal gastropods with a shell that consists of the protoconch 1 (embryonic shell of about one whorl) and a teleoconch and which principally lacks a larval shell (protoconch 2) (e.g., Nützel 2014). If C. minutus was holoplanktonic, this seems unlikely because vetigastropods are benthic and never produced holoplanktonic forms although some tiny Recent representatives are able to swim temporarily (Hickman and Porter 2007).

  • Coelodiscus minutus represents an isolated larval shell of an unknown larger caenogastropod. This is unlikely because despite good knowledge of Early Jurassic gastropods of Europe, a teleoconch with a C. minutus larval shell was never found. Additionally, with up to 3 mm or even 5 mm diameter, it is too large for a larval shell of the planktotrophic type.

  • Coelodiscus minutus can be derived from a plankton feeding caenogastropod veliger larva and changed the larval stage into a holoplanktonic adult stage. This heterochronic, neotenous process represents the most likely hypothesis for the evolution of C. minutus. The same extension of the larval phase has been convincingly proposed for the evolution of the extant holoplanktonic pteropods (Lemche 1948; Bandel and Hemleben 1987), which are not related to heteropods including C. minutus.

We conclude that C. minutus is indeed the oldest known holoplanktonic gastropod. Since gastropods are principally a benthic group, Coelodiscus must have evolved from a benthic precursor, probably during the Early Jurassic. We speculate that this precursor had a planktotrophic larval development and that probably under the influence of increasing frequency of dysoxic episodes along with hostile benthic conditions, the larval phase was extended and eventually a holoplanktonic species evolved. This speculation is based on that the first appearance of holoplanktonic gastropods is associated with wide-spread anoxia. Being holoplanktonic or benthic is a zero-one issue and the evolutionary transition must have been fast. Thus, it cannot be expected that the evolution from a benthic precursor to a holoplanktonic species can be studied in the fossil record. It is also questionable whether the benthic precursors can ever be identified. Based on an alleged similarity of their larval shells, Bandel (2007: 172, fig. 23) assumed that the holoplanktonic Heteropoda including Coelodiscus form the sister group of Stromboidea with a hypothetical Triassic stem species. However, as stated by Gründel et al. (2009), there are no convincing arguments for this phylogenetic scenario; the secondary shell of Coelodiscus and spirally ornamented larval shells present in the heteropod genus Atlanta are unlike larval shells of Stromboidea, especially those of Jurassic heteropods. Based on the similarity of the larval shell of some species representing the genus Atlanta to the secondary shell of Coelodiscus, an assignment of Coelodiscidae to heteropods as suggested by Bandel and Hemleben (1987) is justified according to the current state of knowledge although the teleoconch morphology of the modern Atlanta and other heteropods is unknown in Jurassic or older gastropods.

During the Early Toarcian anoxic event, C. minutus was highly abundant in the plankton and dead shells rained down to the anoxic or dysoxic bottom. These thin and fragile shells formed an ooze similar to the pteropod ooze in the modern deep sea. The shells were exceptionally well preserved due to the absence or low level of deposit feeding and bioturbation as well as the formation of early diagenetic concretions.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Reinhart Veit (Velden, Germany) for sample collection, Adriana López-Arbarello (BSPG) for the identification of vertebrate specimens, Franz T. Fürsich (GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Erlangen, Germany) and Nikolaus Malchus (Institut Català de Paleontologia, Barcelona, Spain) for the identification of bivalve specimens, Gernot Arp (Geowissenschaftliches Zentrum, Göttingen, Germany) for advice on the classification of the sampling horizon, and Michael Joachimski (GeoZentrum Nordbayern, Erlangen, Germany) for the TOC analyses. Comments from Arie W. Janssen (Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, Netherlands) and Stefano Monari (Dipartimento di Geoscienze, Padua, Italy) improved this manuscript. AN acknowledges tire Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (NU 96/11-1) for financial support.

References

1.

K. Bandel 2007. About the larval shell of some Stromboidea, connected to a review of the classification and phytogeny of the Strombimorpha (Caenogastropoda). Freiberger Forschungshefte C 524: 97–206. Google Scholar

2.

K. Bandel and C. Hemleben 1987. Jurassic heteropods and their modern counterparts (planktonic Gastropoda, Mollusca). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 174: 1–22. Google Scholar

3.

K. Bandel and H. Knitter 1983. Litho- und biofazielle Untersuchung eines Posidonienschieferprofils in Oberfranken. Geologische Blätter für Nordostbayern 32: 95–129. Google Scholar

4.

K. Bandel and H. Knitter 1986. On the origin and diagenesis of the bituminous Posidonia Shale (Toarcian) of Southern Germany. Mitteilungen aus dem Geologisch-Paläontologischen Institut der Universität Hamburg 60: 151–177. Google Scholar

5.

H.M.D. de Blainville 1818a. Conchyliologie, In : F. Cuvier (ed.), Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles , Vol. 10, 168–225, Levrault, Strasbourg & Le Normant, Paris. Google Scholar

6.

H.M.D. de Blainville 1818b. Poissons fossils. Nouvelle Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle 27: 310–395. Google Scholar

7.

R. Brösamlen 1909. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Gastropoden des Schwäbischen Jura. Palaeontographica 56: 177–322. Google Scholar

8.

R. Burmeister 1837. Handbuch der Naturgeschichte. [Part 2], xii + 369–858. Enslin, Berlin. Google Scholar

9.

L.R. Cox 1960. Thoughts on the classification of the Gastropoda. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London 33: 239–261. Google Scholar

10.

P. Destombes 1984. Recherches sur la mésofaune de l'Albien inférieur de Bully-Saint-Martin l'Horbier (Pays de Bray). Bulletin Trimestriel de la Société Géologique de Normandie et des Amis du Musée du Havre 70: 41–54. Google Scholar

11.

K.L. Duff 1975. Palaeoecology of a bituminous shale—the Lower Oxford Clay of central England. Palaeontology 18: 443–482. Google Scholar

12.

K.L. Duff 1978. Bivalvia from the English Lower Oxford Clay (Middle Jurassic). Palaeontographical Society, Monographs 132: 1–137. Google Scholar

13.

G. Einsele and R. Mosebach 1955. Zur Petrographie, Fossilerhaltung und Entstehung der Gesteine des Posidonienschiefers des Schwäbischen Jura. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 101: 319–430. Google Scholar

14.

W. Etter 1996. Pseudoplanktonic and benthic invertebrates in the Middle Jurassic Opalinum Clay, northern Switzerland. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 126: 325–341. Google Scholar

15.

G.A. Goldfuss 1826–1844. Petrefacta Germaniae tam ea, quae in museo universitatis regiae Borussicae Fridericiae Wilhelmiae Rhenanae servantur quam alia quaecunque in museis Hoeninghusino, Muensteriano aliisque extant, iconibus et descriptionibus illustrate. 254 pp. Arnz & Comp., Düsseldorf. Google Scholar

16.

J. Gründel 2001. Gastropoden aus dem Jura der südamerikanischen Anden. Freiberger Forschungshefte C 492: 43–84. Google Scholar

17.

J. Gründel , A. Nützel , and C. Schulbert 2009. Toarctocera (Gastropoda, Aporrhaidae): a new genus from the Jurassic (Toarcian/Aalenian) of South Germany and the early evolutionary history of the family Aporrhaidae. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 83: 533–543. Google Scholar

18.

A. Hallam 1967. An environmental study of the Upper Domerian and Lower Toarcian in Great Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 778/252: 393–445. Google Scholar

19.

Ø. Hammer , D.A.T. Harper , and P.D. Ryan 2001. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4: 9 pp. Google Scholar

20.

C.S. Hickman and S.S. Porter 2007. Nocturnal swimming, aggregation at light traps, and mass spawning of scissurellid gastropods (Mollusca: Vetigastropoda). Invertebrate Biology 126: 10–17. Google Scholar

21.

D. Jablonski and R.A. Lutz 1983. Larval ecology of marine benthic invertebrates: paleobiological implications. Biological Reviews 58: 21–89. Google Scholar

22.

A.W. Janssen 2003. Notes on the systematics, morphology and biostratigraphy of fossil holoplanktonic Mollusca, 13. Considerations on a subdivision of Thecosomata, with the emphasis on genus group classification of Limacinidae. Cainozoic Research 2: 163–170. Google Scholar

23.

A.W. Janssen 2012. Systematics and biostratigraphy of holoplanktonic Mollusca from the Oligo-Miocene of the Maltese Archipelago. Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino 28: 197–601. Google Scholar

24.

R.P.S. Jefferies and P. Minton 1965. The mode of life of two Jurassic species of “Posidonia”. Palaeontology 8: 156–185. Google Scholar

25.

A. Kaim 2001. Faunal dynamics of juvenile gastropods and associated organisms across the Valanginian transgression-regression cycle in central Poland. Cretaceous Research 22: 333–351. Google Scholar

26.

E. Kauffman 1981. Ecological reappraisal of the Gemrman Posidonienschiefer (Toarcian) and the stagnant basin model, In : J. Gray (ed.), Communities of the P ast , 311–381. Hutchinson and Ross Inc., Stroudsbourg. Google Scholar

27.

C.M. Lalli and R.W. Gilmer 1989. Pelagic Snails—the Biology of Holoplanktonic Gastropod Molluscs. 259 pp. Stanford University Press, California. Google Scholar

28.

J.-B. Lamarck 1815–1822. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres… précédée d'une introduction offrant la détermination des caractères essentiels de l'animal, sa distinction du végétal et des autres corps naturels, enfin, l'exposition des principes fondamentaux de la zoologie. 462 pp. Verdière, Paris. Google Scholar

29.

H. Lemche 1948. Northern and Arctic tectibranch gastropods—I. The larval shells II. A revision of the cephalaspid species. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabemes Selskab, Biologiske Skrifter 5: 1–136. Google Scholar

30.

C.A. Lesueur 1817. Mémoire sur deux nouveaux genres de mollusques, Atlante et Atlas. Journal de Physique 85: 390–393. Google Scholar

31.

P. Lozouet 2012. Position systématique de quelques gastéropodes de l'Éocéne à dernier tour disjoint (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Caenogastropoda): Delphinula conica, Omalaxis, Eoatlanta. Cossmanniana 14: 57–66. Google Scholar

32.

R.H. Mapes and A. Nützel 2009. Where did Upper Paleozoic cephalopods lay their eggs?—Evidence from cephalopod embryos and gastropod and pelecypod veliger larvae. Lethaia 42: 341–356. Google Scholar

33.

F.B. Meek 1864. Remarks on the family Pteriidae, (= Aviculidae) with descriptions of some new fossil genera. The American Journal of Science and Arts, Second Series 37: 212–220. Google Scholar

34.

K.A. Morris 1979. A classification of Jurassic marine shale sequences: An example from the Toarcian (Lower Jurassic) of Great Britain. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 26: 117–126. Google Scholar

35.

L. Newman 1998. Superfamily Carinarioidea. In : P.L. Beesly , G.L.B. Ross , and A. Wells (eds.), Mollusca: The Southern Synthesis. The Fauna of Australia, Volume 5, 804–808. CSIRO Publications, Melbourne. Google Scholar

36.

C. Niebuhr 1775. Descriptiones animalium avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, vermium quae in itinere orientali observcnit Petrus Forskål, prof. Haun., post mortem auctoris edidit Carsten Niebuhr. 183 pp. Möller, Copenhagen. Google Scholar

37.

A. Nützel 2014. Larval ecology and morphology in fossil gastropods. Palaeontology 57: 479–503. Google Scholar

38.

A.D. d'Orbigny 1842–1843. Paléontologie française: Terrains Crétacés. 2. Gastropode. 456 pp. Masson, Paris. Google Scholar

39.

Paleobiology Database. 2014. Occurrence Downloads. Available at  http://paleobiodb.org  Google Scholar

40.

F.A. Quenstedt 1858 .Der Jura. 842 pp. Laupp, Tübingen. Google Scholar

41.

P.C. Rang 1829. Manuel de l'histoire naturelle des mollusques et de leurs coquilles: ayant pour base de classification celle de M. le baron Cuvier. 390 pp. Roret, Paris. Google Scholar

42.

G. Richter 1973. Zur Stammesgeschichte pelagischer Gastropoden. Natur und Museum 103: 265–275. Google Scholar

43.

W. Riegraf , G. Werner , and F. Lörcher 1984. Der Posidonienschiefer: Biostratigraphie, Fauna und Fazies des Südwestdeutschen Untertoarciums (Lias epsilon). 195 pp. Enke, Stuttgart. Google Scholar

44.

H.-J. Röhl 1998. Hochauflösende palökölogische und sedimentologische Untersuchungen im Posidonienschiefer (Lias epsilon) von SW-Deutschland: Tübinger geowissenschaftliche Arbeiten 47: 1–170. Google Scholar

45.

H.-J. Röhl and A. Schmid-Röhl 2005. Lower Toarcian (Upper Liassic) black shales of the Central European epicontinental basin: a sequence stratigraphic case study from the SW German Posidonia Shale. SEPM Special Publication 82: 165–189. Google Scholar

46.

H.-J. Röhl , A. Schmid-Röhl , W. Oschmann , A. Frimmel , and L. Schwark 2001. The Posidonia Shale (Toarcian) of SW-Germany: An oxygen depleted ecosystem controlled by sea level and palaeoclimate. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 165: 27–52. Google Scholar

47.

C. Schulbert and A. Nützel 2013. Gastropods from the Early/Middle Jurassic transition of Franconia (Southern Germany). Bulletin of Geosciences 88: 723–778. Google Scholar

48.

K.I. Schnetler 2013. Eoatlanta ravni nov. sp. (Mollusca: Gastropoda,? Hipponicidae) from the Danian (early Paleocene) of Faxe, Denmark. Cainozoic Research 10: 3–7. Google Scholar

49.

J. Szabo and K. Jaitly 2004. Contributions to the Jurassic of Kachchh, western India VIII. The gastropod fauna. Part II: Discohelicidae, Neritimorpha, Caenogastropoda. Fragmenta Palaeontologica Hungarica 22: 9–26. Google Scholar

50.

R. Tate and J.F. Blake 1876. The Yorkshire Lias. 475 pp. Van Voorst, London. Google Scholar

51.

J.A. Todd and M.C. Munt 2010. Mollusca—Gastropods, In. A.R. Lord and P.G. Davis (eds.), Fossils from the Lower Lias of the Dorset Coast. The Palaeontological Association, Field Guide to Fossils 13: 147–168. Google Scholar

52.

S. Tracey 2010. 10. Gastropods, In : J.R. Young , A.S. Gale , R.I. Knight , and B.A. Smith (eds.), Fossils of the Gault Clay. The Palaeontological Association, Field Guide to Fossils 12: 106–155. Google Scholar

53.

S. Tracey , J.A. Todd , and D.H. Erwin 1993. Mollusca: Gastropoda, In : M.J. Benton (ed.), The Fossil Record , 131–167. . Chapman and Hall, London. Google Scholar

54.

M. Urlichs , R. Wild , and B. Ziegler 1994. Der Posidonienschiefer des Unteren Juras und seine Fossilien. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde C 36: 1–95. Google Scholar

55.

W. Waagen 1869. Die Formenreihe des Ammonites subradiatus: Versuch einer paläontologisehen Monographie, In : E.W. Benecke (ed.), Geognostisch-Paläontologische Beiträge 2 (2), 179–265. Oldenbourg, München. Google Scholar

56.

C.H. von Zieten 1830–1833. Die Versteinerungen Württembergs oder naturgetreue Abbildungen der in den vollständigsten Sammlungen, namentlich der in dem Kabinett des Oberamts-Arzt D. Hartmann befindlichen Petrefacten, mit Angabe der Gebirgs-Formationen, in welchen dieselben Vorkommen und der Fundorte. 102 pp. Verlag & Lithographie der Expedition des Werkes unserer Zeit, Stuttgart. Google Scholar
Copyright © 2015 S. Teichert and A. Nützel. 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.
Sebastian Teichert and Alexander Nützel "Early Jurassic Anoxia Triggered the Evolution of the Oldest Holoplanktonic Gastropod Coelodiscus minutus by Means of Heterochrony," Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 60(2), 269-276, (5 February 2015). https://doi.org/10.4202/app.00145.2014
Received: 4 December 2014; Accepted: 1 January 2015; Published: 5 February 2015
JOURNAL ARTICLE
8 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top