search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Wright et al.—Phylogenetic classification of the Crinoidea


followed Simms and Sevastopulo’s (1993) interpretation of relationships among these taxa, only a few authors have since followed their revised rank-based classification (e.g., Brower, 2001, 2002; Donovan and Harper, 2003). Our stem-based definition of the Cladida is similar in


taxonomic content to Simms and Sevastopulo’s(1993) because it includes all species closer to Dendrocrinus than to the disparid Synbathocrinus. Thus, the Cladida spans the Ordovician to the Recent and contains themajor subclades Porocrinoidea, Flexibilia, and Articulata. Cladids are most easily distinguished from their sister group, theDisparida, in typically having a dicyclic calyx and posterior plates (as adults or during development) located below and/or in line with the radial plate circlet (Wright, 2015a). Lastly, many middle Paleozoic to Recent cladids have pinnules, whereas most disparids do not (Frest et al., 1979).


Porocrinoidea Wright, 2017


Definition.—The Porocrinoidea is node-defined as the least inclusive clade containing Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857 and Hybocrinus conicus Billings, 1857.


Remarks.—In their description of crinoids belonging to Bather’s (1899) ‘Cyathocrinina’, Moore and Laudon (1943) speculated that ‘primitive’ cyathocrinids such as Carabocrinus might be closely related to the enigmatic taxon Hybocrinus. Sprinkle (1982b) argued the stem and calyx morphology of Hybocrinus suggested hybocrinids were ‘pseudomonocyclic’ and listed a number of characters linking hybocrinids with cla-


dids. Although hybocrinids have not traditionally been classi- fied within the Cladida, many phylogenetic analyses of Ordovician crinoids have recovered a clade of ‘cyathocrine’ grade cladids and hybocrinids (Guensburg, 2012; Ausich et al., 2015; Wright, 2017). Wright’s (2017) phylogenetic analysis of Ordovician through Devonian pentacrinoids recovered a clade comprised of Porocrinus, Carabocrinus, and the hybocrinids Hybocrinus and Hybocystites. Notably, this clade is stemward of the split between flexible and other cladid crinoids. Thus, Wright (2017) proposed the name ‘Porocrinoidea’ to encompass this early diverging and morphologically unique clade of Ordovician crinoids. Our node-based definition of the Porocrinoidea sets up a


node-stem triplet that stabilizes the sister clade relationship among the Porocrinida and Hybocrinida recovered by Ausich et al. (2015), which had denser taxon sampling of Ordovician crinoids than Wright (2017). The Clade Porocrinoidea is likely limited to the Ordovician Period, but additional analyses sampling younger species are needed to test the extent of their geologic duration. Porocrinoids are a subclade of cladids characterized by globose, conical, or ovate calyces that possess a number of apomorphies convergent with blastozoan echino- derms, such as having thecal respiratory structures, reduction in arm number and calyx plates, and/or recumbent ambulacra (see Moore and Teichert, 1978; Sprinkle, 1982a, 1982b).


Porocrinida Miller and Gurley, 1894


Definition.—The Porocrinida is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing Porocrinus conicus Billings, 1857


Definition.—The Flexibilia is stem-defined as the most inclu- sive clade containing Taxocrinus macrodactylus (Phillips, 1841) but not Dendrocrinus longidactylus Hall, 1852.


839


and Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857 but not Hybocrinus conicus Billings, 1857.


Remarks.—The Porocrinida comprise a small clade of Ordovi- cian porocrinoids with apomorphic endothecal and/or exothecal respiratory structures. Sprinkle (1982a) pointed to many similarities among Carabocrinus, Palaeocrinus, and the Porocrinidae and hypothesized they may be closely related. Ausich et al. (2015) recovered a topology supporting this hypothesis with the euspirocrinid Illemocrinus as their sister taxon. However, Wright (2017) recovered Euspirocrinus out- side the porocrinid clade within a different clade of ‘cyatho- crine’ grade cladids. Thus, Illemocrinus is tentatively placed within the Porocrinida, but other taxa within the Euspriocrinidae should not be placed within the Porocrinida at this time as additional revisions are necessary. Guensburg (2012) recovered a similar tree to Ausich et al. (2015) that suggested Perittocrinus may be also be a porocrinid. The stem-based definition of the Porocrinida makes them


sister to theHybocrinida and retains the taxonomicmembership of this clade recovered inAusich et al. (2015) andGuensburg (2012). Porocrinids can easily be distinguished from hybocrinids in having a dicyclic calyx and the presence of thecal respiratory structures (Kesling and Paul, 1968; Sprinkle, 1982a).


Hybocrinida Jaekel, 1918


Definition.—The Hybocrinida is stem-defined as the most inclusive clade containing Hybocrinus conicus Billings, 1857 and Hybocystites problematicus Wetherby, 1880 but not Porocrinus conicus Billings, 1857 and Carabocrinus radiatus Billings, 1857.


Remarks.—Hybocrinids comprise a small yet morphologically disparate clade of Ordovician crinoids. Although the mono- cyclic hybocrinids have been either considered disparids or classified outside the Inadunata (Moore and Laudon, 1943; Moore and Teichert, 1978; Ausich, 1998b), Sprinkle (1982b) suspected hybocrinids might be ‘pseudomonocyclic’ and potentially related to ‘cyathocrine’ cladids (see Sprinkle, 1982a, 1982b). Phylogenetic analyses by Guensburg (2012), Ausich et al. (2015), and Wright (2017) all support the monophyly of the Hybocrinida and their sister group relationship with taxa placed in the Porocrinida (see Sprinkle, 1982b). In addition to having a pseudomonocyclic calyx (infra-


basals absent), hybocrinids are characterized by a number of unusual apomorphies that distinguish them from Porocrinids (and all other crinoids). Many of these traits are similar to those typically present in blastozoan echinoderms, including reduc- tion in the number of arms, modification of food-gathering appendages to be recumbent (sometimes extending downward over calyx plates), and reduction in the number of calyx plates (Sprinkle and Moore, 1978).


Flexibilia Zittel, 1895


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212  |  Page 213  |  Page 214  |  Page 215  |  Page 216  |  Page 217  |  Page 218  |  Page 219  |  Page 220  |  Page 221  |  Page 222  |  Page 223  |  Page 224  |  Page 225  |  Page 226  |  Page 227  |  Page 228  |  Page 229  |  Page 230  |  Page 231  |  Page 232  |  Page 233  |  Page 234  |  Page 235  |  Page 236  |  Page 237  |  Page 238  |  Page 239  |  Page 240  |  Page 241  |  Page 242  |  Page 243  |  Page 244  |  Page 245  |  Page 246  |  Page 247  |  Page 248  |  Page 249  |  Page 250  |  Page 251  |  Page 252  |  Page 253  |  Page 254  |  Page 255  |  Page 256  |  Page 257  |  Page 258  |  Page 259  |  Page 260  |  Page 261  |  Page 262  |  Page 263  |  Page 264  |  Page 265  |  Page 266  |  Page 267  |  Page 268  |  Page 269  |  Page 270  |  Page 271  |  Page 272  |  Page 273  |  Page 274  |  Page 275  |  Page 276  |  Page 277  |  Page 278  |  Page 279  |  Page 280  |  Page 281  |  Page 282  |  Page 283  |  Page 284  |  Page 285  |  Page 286  |  Page 287  |  Page 288