Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Paleobiology Email Content Delivery
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paleobiology; January 2008; v. 34; no. 1; p. 22-34; DOI: 10.1666/07031.1
© 2008 Paleontological Society
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Baumiller, T. K.
Right arrow Articles by Messing, C. G.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Urchins in the meadow: paleobiological and evolutionary implications of cidaroid predation on crinoids

Tomasz K. Baumiller1, Rich Mooi2 and Charles G. Messing3

1 Tomasz K. Baumiller. Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079. tomaszb{at}umich.edu
2 Rich Mooi. Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Geology, California Academy Sciences, San Francisco, California 94103. rmooi{at}calacademy.org
3 Charles G. Messing. Nova Southeastern Oceanographic Center, Dania, Florida 33004. messingc{at}nova.edu

Deep-sea submersible observations made in the Bahamas revealed interactions between the stalked crinoid Endoxocrinus parrae and the cidaroid sea urchin Calocidaris micans. The in situ observations include occurrence of cidaroids within "meadows" of sea lilies, close proximity of cidaroids to several upended isocrinids, a cidaroid perched over the distal end of the stalk of an upended isocrinid, and disarticulated crinoid cirri and columnals directly underneath a specimen of C. micans. Guts of two C. micans collected from the crinoid meadow contain up to 70% crinoid material. Two of three large museum specimens of another cidaroid species, Histocidaris nuttingi, contain 14–99% crinoid material.

A comparison of cidaroid gut contents with local sediment revealed significant differences: sediment-derived material consists of single crinoid ossicles often abraded and lacking soft tissue, whereas crinoid columnals, cirrals, brachials, and pinnulars found in the cidaroids are often articulated, linked by soft tissue, and unabraded. Furthermore, articulated, multi-element fragments often show a mode of fracture characteristic of fresh crinoid material. Taken together, these data suggest that cidaroids prey on live isocrinids.

We argue that isocrinid stalk-shedding, whose purpose has remained a puzzle, and the recently documented rapid crawling of isocrinids are used in escaping benthic predators: isocrinids sacrifice and shed the distal stalk portion when attacked by cidaroids and crawl away, reducing the chance of a subsequent encounter. If such predation occurred throughout the Mesozoic and Cenozoic (possibly since the mid-Paleozoic), several evolutionary trends among crinoids might represent strategies to escape predation by slow-moving benthic predators.







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by Paleontological Society