Hendricks—Miocene Conidae from the Gatun Formation of Panama
Gatun Formation strata from which these taxa were collected were deposited ca. 10–11 Ma (late Miocene). All six of these clades, therefore, hadminimum ages of origination of 10Ma and as such may provide useful calibration points for future phylogenetic studies. The phylogenetic positions of the other four species can- not currently be estimated beyond the genus level and it is possible that some of them may represent extinct clades of Conidae. Combined with the similar pattern of substantial phylogenetic diversity documented recently in Neogene Dominican Conidae (Hendricks, 2015), the Conidae fauna of YN020 adds to the view that the biogeographic history of the modern tropical American Conidae fauna is complex and is, at least in part, built frommany different, long-lived clades. To date, reconstruction of the phylo- genetic biogeographic history of tropical American Conidae has relied predominantly on analysis ofmolecular sequence data (e.g., Duda and Kohn, 2005; Puillandre et al., 2014), with limited reference to the rich cone snail fossil record of this region. Com- bining these sequence data with shell character data derived from extant and fossil species (i.e., a total evidence framework; see Hermsen and Hendricks, 2008) has the potential to not only to directly test the phylogenetic assignments posited above, but also to more broadly explore the evolutionary history of this remark- able clade of dazzling, deadly, and diverse marine gastropods.
Acknowledgments
Fieldwork related to this study was facilitated by the National Science Foundation-supported project Great American Biotic Interchange Research Experiences for Teachers (GABI-RET; EAR 1358919 to B. MacFadden) and Partnerships for Interna- tional Research and Education Panama Canal Project (PIRE PCP; OISE 0966884 to B. MacFadden), as well as the staff of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). Thank you to B. MacFadden for the invitation to participate in the 2015 GABI-RET, C.A. Grant for coordinating many aspects of the project, and especially to the enthusiastic participating teachers who helped collect cone snail specimens in the field. Additional thanks for assistance in the field go to R. Portell, A. Klomp- maker, C. Robbins, and J.W. Morena Bernal. Access to additional material, including type specimens, was provided by M. del Carmen Perrilliat (Instituo de Geología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Colección Nacional de Paleontología), K. Hollis and D. Levin (National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C.), S. Butts (Yale Peabody Museum), J. Todd (Natural History Museum, London), P. Calloman (Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel Uni- versity), J. DeMouthe (California Academy of Sciences), and G. Dietl and L. Skibinski (Paleontological Research Institution). A. Schumacher and O. Mandic (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien) kindly provided the images of NHMW specimens that are shown in this paper. A special thank you is extended to R. Portell and the staff of the Division of Invertebrate Paleontology at the Florida Museum of Natural History for facilitating large loans of specimens for this study. At Ohio University, E. Hermsen (Dept. of Environmental & Plant Biology) and D. López (Dept. of Geological Sciences) are gratefully acknowledged for providing research space that supported this project. Finally, I thank A.J. Kohn and B. Landau for
835
constructive reviews of an earlier version of this manuscript, and J. Kastigar, D. Davis, and B. Hunda for editorial assistance.
Accessibility of supplemental data
Data available from the Dryad Digital Repository: doi:10.5061/ dryad.2q2s4.
References Anderson, B.M., Hendy, A., Johnson, E.H., and Allmon,W.D., 2017, Paleoecol- ogy and paleoenvironmental implications of turritelline gastropod-dominated assemblages from the Gatun Formation (Upper Miocene) of Panama: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 470, p. 132–146.
Born, I., 1778, Index Rerum Naturalium Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis. Pars Prima, Testacea: Vienna, Officina Krausiana, 458 p.
Böse, E., 1906, Sobre algunas faunas Terciarias de México: Boletin Instituto Geológico de México, v. 22, p. 1–92.
Bouchet, P., 2011, Californiconus: MolluscaBase, accessed through World register of Marine Species:
http://marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p = taxde tails&id = 581057 [Jul 2017].
Bouchet, P., and Gofas, S., 2015, Conus Linnaeus, 1758: MolluscaBase, accessed through World Register of Marine Species: http://www.
marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p = taxdetails&id = 137813 [Jul 2017].
Broderip, W.J., 1833, Genus Conus: Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, v. 1833, p. 52–55.
Broderip, W.J., and Sowerby, I, G.B., 1829, Observations on new or interesting mollusca contained, for the most part, in the Museum of the Zoological Society: Zoological Journal (London), v. 4, p. 359–379.
Brown, A.P., and Pilsbry, H.A., 1911, Fauna of the Gatun Formation, Isthmus of Panama: Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, v. 63, p. 336–373.
Bruguiére, J.G., 1792, Encyclopédie Méthodique: Histoire Naturelle des Vers: Paris, Panckoucke, v. 1, p. 345–757.
Caze, B., Merle, D., Pacaud, J.-M., and Saint Martin, J.-P., 2010, First sys- tematic study using the variability of the residual colour patterns: the case of the Paleogene Seraphsidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Stromboidea): Geodi- versitas, v. 32, p. 417–477.
Caze, B., Merle, D., Meur, M.L., Pacaud, J.-M., Ledon, D., and Martin, J.-P.S., 2011a, Taxonomic implications of the residual colour patterns of ampullinid gastropods and their contribution to the discrimination from naticids: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, v. 56, p. 329–347.
Caze, B., Merle, D., Saint Martin, J.-P., and Pacaud, J.-M., 2011b, Contribution of residual colour patterns to the species characterization of Caenozoic molluscs (Gastropoda, Bivalvia): Comptes Rendus Palevol, v. 10, p. 171–179.
Children, J.G., 1823, Lamarck’s genera of shells: Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and the Arts, v. 16, p. 49–79.
Clench, W.J., 1942, The genus Conus in the western Atlantic: Johnsonia, v. 1, p. 1–40.
Coates, A.G., 1999, Lithostratigraphy of the Neogene strata of the Caribbean coast from Limon, Costa Rica, to Colon, Panama: Bulletins of American Paleontology, v. 113, p. 17–37.
Collins, L. S., 1999, The Miocene to recent diversity of Caribbean benthic for- aminifera from the Central American Isthmus: Bulletins of American Paleontology, no. 357, p. 91–107.
Cossmann, M., 1913, Étude comparative de fossiles Miocéniques: recueillis a la Martinique et a l’Isthme de Panama: Journal de Conchyliologie, v. 61, p. 1–64.
Cotton, B.C., 1945, A catalogue of the cone shells (Conidae) in the South Australian Museum: Records of the South Australian Museum, v. 8, p. 229–280.
Cruz, R.A.L., Pante, M.J.R., and Rohlf, F.J., 2012, Geometric morphometric analysis of shell shape variation in Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae): Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, v. 165, p. 296–310.
Cunha, R.L., Tenorio, M.J., Afonso, C., Castilho, R., and Zardoya, R., 2008, Replaying the tape: recurring biogeographical patterns in Cape Verde Conus after 12 million years: Molecular Ecology, v. 17, p. 885–901.
Dall, W.H., 1889, A preliminary catalogue of the shell-bearing marine mollusks and brachiopods of the south-eastern coast of the United States: Bulletin of the United States National Museum, v. 37, p. 1–221.
Duda, T.F., and Kohn, A.J., 2005, Species-level phylogeography and evolutionary history of the hyperdiverse marine gastropod genus Conus: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, v. 34, p. 257–272.
da Motta, A.J., 1991, A Systematic Classification of the Gastropod Family Conidae at the Generic Level: Rome, La Conchiglia, 48 p.
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
