Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-bxsvz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-30T23:32:26.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crinoid arms and banana plantations: an economic harvesting analogy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Richard Cowen
Richard Cowen*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The pattern of arm branching and arm morphology in the camerate crinoid family Melocrinitidae became more complex during an evolutionary sequence which extended from Late Ordovician to Late Devonian. The fully evolved melocrinitid arm pattern bears an amazing resemblance to the theoretically ideal lay-out for harvesting roads on a banana plantation. This may not be coincidental since the problems faced by a banana plantation manager are much the same as those of a crinoid: the harvesting of an evenly distributed micro-particulate resource from an area and its delivery to a central point for processing. The analogy suggests a detailed explanation of the melocrinitid morphology and evolution. It also raises the question: why did the pattern not become dominant among crinoids if it was so efficient? It may have been unlikely to evolve; it may reflect an unusual food supply. I prefer an explanation in which the plantation pattern demands a rigidity of the crinoid crown which is characteristic of camerates but is uncommon among other crinoids: the latter have adopted a strategy of feeding which emphasizes flexibility in anatomy and behavior. The banana plantation pattern is equally rare among other organisms. Thus an “ideal” may not be common in a group of organisms for cost-benefit reasons. This does not mean that the adaptationist's approach is improper, or that random, historical, or constructional constraints routinely overwhelm adaptation. Rather, it means that cost-benefit analysis should take a larger part in functional studies, as it does in natural selection, and that theoretical ideals should be viewed with caution.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , Summer 1981 , pp. 332 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Ausich, W. I. 1980. A model for niche differentiation in Lower Mississippian crinoid communities. J. Paleontol. 54:273–288.Google Scholar
Breimer, A. 1969. A contribution to the paleoecology of Paleozoic stalked crinoids. K. Ned. Akad. Wetensch., Proc, ser. B. 72:139–150.Google Scholar
Breimer, A. 1978a. General morphology, Recent crinoids. Pp.T9–T58. In: Ubaghs, G. et al., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part T. Crinoidea. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Breimer, A. 1978b. Ecology of Recent crinoids. Pp.T316–T330. In: Ubaghs, G. et al., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part T. Crinoidea. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Breimer, A. and Lane, N. G. 1978. Paleoecology. Pp.T331–T347. In: Ubaghs, G. et al., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part T. Crinoidea. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1973. Crinoids from the Girardeau Limestone (Ordovician). Paleontol. Am. 7:263–499.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1974. Ontogeny of camerate crinoids. Univ. Kansas Paleontol. Contrib. Paper. 72:1–52.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1976. Promelocrinus from the Wenlock at Dudley. Palaeontology. 19:651–680.Google Scholar
Brower, J. C. 1978. Evolution of the Melocrinitidae. Thalassia Jugoslavica. 12:41–49.Google Scholar
Bulman, O. M. B. 1970. Graptolithina. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part V. 173 pp. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Cowen, R. and Rider, J. 1972. Functional analysis of fenestellid bryozoan colonies. Lethaia. 5:145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francheteau, J. et al. 1979. Basaltic pillars in collapsed lava-pools on the deep ocean-floor. Nature. 281:209–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1980. The promise of paleontology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline. Paleobiology. 6:96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist program. Proc. R. Soc. London. B. 205:581–598.Google Scholar
Haugh, B. N. 1975. Nervous systems of Mississippian camerate crinoids. Paleobiology. 1:261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1978a. General morphology: Evolution, Cladida. Pp.T295–T298. In: Ubaghs, G. et al., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part T. Crinoidea. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. 1978b. Historical review of classification of Crinoidea. Pp.T348–T359. In: Ubaghs, G. et al., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part T. Crinoidea. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. and Breimer, A. 1974. Arm types and feeding habits of Paleozoic crinoids. K. Ned. Akad. Wetensch., Proc. (ser. B). 77:32–39.Google Scholar
Lane, N. G. and Burke, J. J. 1976. Arm movement and feeding mode of inadunate crinoids with biserial arm articulations. Paleobiology. 2:202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macurda, D. B. and Meyer, D. L. 1974. Feeding posture of modern stalked crinoids. Nature. 247:394–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, G. C. 1978. Pseudoplanktonic crinoid colonies attached to Upper Devonian (Frasnian) logs. Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr. with Progr. 10:453.Google Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1973. Feeding behavior and ecology of shallow-water unstalked crinoids (Echinodermata) in the Caribbean Sea. Mar. Biol. 22:105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. 1979. Morphological length and spacing of the tube feet in crinoids (Echinodermata) and their role in suspension feeding. Mar. Biol. 51:361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. L. and Lane, N. G. 1976. The feeding behavior of some Paleozoic crinoids and Recent basketstars. J. Paleontol. 50:472–480.Google Scholar
Roux, M. 1980. Les crinoides pédonculés (Echinodermes) photographiés sur les dorsales océaniques de l'Atlantique et du Pacifique. Implications biogéographiques. Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris, sér. D. 291:901–905.Google Scholar
Rutman, J. and Fishelson, L. 1969. Food composition and feeding behavior of shallow-water crinoids at Eilat (Red Sea). Mar. Biol. 3:46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1979. Constructional morphology of sand dollars. Paleobiology. 5:191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockton, W. L. and Cowen, R. 1976. Stereoscopic vision in one eye: paleophysiology of the schizochroal eye of trilobites. Paleobiology. 2:304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, J. C. 1967. Layout of road systems on plantations. Brit. Ministry of Transport, Road Res. Lab. Report LR. 68:1–12.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1953. Classe des Crinoides. pp. 658–773. In: Piveteau, J., ed. Traité de Paléontologie, vol. 3; Masson; Paris.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1958. Recherches sur les Crinoides Camerata du Silurien de Gotland (Suède). III. Melocrinicae. Arkiv. Zool. Svensk. Akad., ser 2. 11:259–306.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978a. Skeletal morphology of fossil crinoids. Pp.T59–T216. In: Ubaghs, G. et al., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part T. Crinoidea. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. 1978b. Evolution of camerate crinoids. Pp.T281–T292. In: Ubaghs, G. et al., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part T. Crinoidea. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Ubaghs, G. et al. 1978. Camerata. Pp.T408–T519. In: Ubaghs, G. et al., eds. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part T. Crinoidea. Geol. Soc. Am. and Univ. Kansas Press; Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar