Evolution of cephalopods

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The

lagerstätten.[2][3]

The class developed during the middle Cambrian, and underwent pulses of diversification during the

Scaphopoda but otherwise basal to all other major mollusc classes.[8][9] The internal phylogeny of Mollusca, however, is wide open to interpretation – see mollusc phylogeny
.

Traditional views of origin

Nectocaris, a putative early cephalopod that is difficult to reconcile with the traditional view of cephalopod origins (from Smith, 2013[10])

The cephalopods were once thought to have evolved from a

gastropods as well as cephalopods – a siphuncle is essential to ally a fossil shell conclusively to the cephalopoda.[12]: 57  Chambered gastropods can be distinguished from cephalopod shells by the absence of a siphuncle, the irregular spacing of septa, the layering of the shell and (in younger or unmetamorphosed rocks) its microstructure, and the relatively thick width of the shell.[15] The earliest such shells do not have the muscle scars which would be expected if they truly had a monoplacophoran affinity.[12]: 57  Additionally, the discovery that Nectocaris pteryx, which did not have a shell and appeared to possess jet propulsion in the manner of "derived" cephalopods, complicated the question of the order in which cephalopod features developed[2] – provided it is in fact a cephalopod and not an arthropod.[16][17]

Early shell record

camerae
, both encrusted.

Understanding of early cephalopod origins is by necessity biased by the available fossil material, which on the whole consists of shelly fossils. Critical fossils are detailed below; since their stratigraphic age has guided the interpretation of the fossils,[18] they are listed in descending order of age.

Cambrian

With the exception of the shelly genera

Eoclarkoceras, none of the 30+ Cambrian cephalopod genera are known to have survived into the Ordovician.[19] Cambrian cephalopods differ from their descendants by account of their small size (a few centimetres in length); long, tapering shells; smooth shell surfaces; closely spaced septa; and lack of deposits in their body chamber; several more specific features are also only seen in certain groups of Cambrian cephalopod.[19]

Tannuella

Tannuella is the oldest fossil to have been assigned to the cephalopods, dating from the Early Cambrian (Atdababian and Botomian), ~522 million years ago. Its position in this group is suggested based on its shape and the presence of chambers.[20] Under this hypothesis, it would be a precursor to the hypseloconids and then genera such as Knightoconus that eventually gave rise to the cephalopods.[21]

Knightoconus

monoplacophoran[22] thought to represent an ancestor to the cephalopods. It had a chambered, conical shell, but lacked a siphuncle.[13] Although earlier molluscan fossils are also septate, Knightoconus is the latest septate mollusc before the first sipunculate cephalopods – a point that has been taken to prove its relevance to the Cephalopoda.[18] The absence of this siphuncle has been taken as evidence against cephalopod ancestry – how, it is argued, could a siphuncle evolve to penetrate existing septa? The prevailing argument suggests that a strand of tissue remained attached to the previous septum as the mollusc moved forwards and deposited its next septum, producing an obstacle to the complete closure of the septum and becoming mineralised itself.[23] 10 or more septa are found in mature individuals, occupying around a third of the shell – septa form very early and have been found in specimens as small as 2 mm in length.[18] Septa are uniformly spaced,[18] which is inconsistent with a gastropod affinity.[15] Unlike monoplacophoran fossils, there is no evidence of muscle scarring in Knightoconus fossils.[18]

Plectronoceras

Reconstruction of Plectronoceras

Plectronoceras is arguably the earliest known crown-group cephalopod, dating to the Upper Cambrian.[1] Its 14 known specimens hail from the basal

Ellesmerocerids
, the first "true cephalopods".

Yochelcionellids

The

Yochelcionellids have given rise to the "snorkel hypothesis". These fossils are aseptate helcionellids with a snorkel-like tube on one surface. The snorkel has been seized upon as characteristic of a cephalopod-like water circulatory system, or perhaps as a precursor to the siphuncle. However, neither of these theories have been borne out.[18]

Ellesmerocerida

Sketch of the soft-part anatomy of early ellesmeroceridans, as reconstructed by Kröger (2007).[14]

The earliest true cephalopod order to emerge was the Ellesmerocerida, which were quite small; their shells were slightly curved, and the internal chambers were closely spaced. The siphuncle penetrated the septa with meniscus-like holes.[4] This marks an important difference from the earlier cephalopods, whose siphuncle was at the edge of the septum and against the shell wall.[18] On the basis of muscle scars preserved in such genera as Paradakeoceras and Levisoceras, these animals are reconstructed with a straight body and dorsal shell, with the head at the anterior, concave surface of the shell, and the funnel (consisting of a pair of folds in the foot at the rear), not juxtaposed with the head as in later, oncocerid-like forms.[14]

Early Ordovician diversity

The Ellesmerocerids were the only shelled cephalopods known to have survived the end-Cambrian extinction; all subsequent cephalopods are thus thought to be derived from these forms, which diversified throughout the Ordovician period.

Early cephalopods had fine shells that could not cope with the pressures of deep water.[4] In the mid Tremadoc, these were supplemented by larger shells around 20 cm in length; these larger forms included straight and coiled shells, and fall into the orders Endocerida (with wide siphuncles) and Tarphycerida (with narrow siphuncles).[4]

By the mid Ordovician these orders are joined by the

Discocerida both emerged during the Darriwilian.[4] The direction of coiling would prove to be crucial to the future success of the lineages; endogastric[a] coiling would only permit large size to be attained with a straight shell, whereas exogastric[a] coiling – initially rather rare – permitted the spirals familiar from the fossil record to develop, with their corresponding large size and diversity.[23]

Curved shells brought a number of benefits. Firstly, minerals are not required in as large quantities, as each successive whorl builds on the one before. Also, the organism is more stable (its centre of mass coincides with its centre of buoyancy) and more manoeuvrable.[24]

Early cephalopods were likely predators, near the top of the food chain.

thrombolites.[26] They gradually adopted a more pelagic habit as the Ordovician progressed.[26] Deep-water cephalopods, whilst rare, have been found in the Lower Ordovician – but only in high-latitude waters.[26]

Fossils mistaken for cephalopods

A number of fossils have historically been considered to represent components of the cephalopods' history, but been reinterpreted on the basis of additional material.

Volborthella

When it was discovered in 1888,[18] it was thought that the early Cambrian Volborthella was a cephalopod. However discoveries of more detailed fossils showed that Volborthella’s small, conical shell was not secreted but built from grains of the mineral silicon dioxide (silica); neither was it septate.[27] This illusion was a result of the laminated texture of the organisms' tests.[28] Therefore, Volborthella’s classification is now uncertain.[29]

Shelbyoceras

Because the characters differentiating monoplacophora from cephalopods are few, several monoplacophora have been mistaken for cephalopod ancestors. One such genus is

Hypseloconus.[30] The septa in this genus are either closely or irregularly spaced.[30]

Pohlsepia

Mazon Creek has originally been interpreted as a cirrate octopus.[31] But later study shows that affinities as octopus is controversial, and even considered to be a non-mollusk.[32]

Kirengellids

The

brachiopods.[33]

Hyoliths

Hyoliths such as Allatheca have been interpreted as cephalopod ancestors,[34] but hyoliths proper are now recognized as brachiopods.[35]

Coleoidea

An ammonitic ammonoid with the body chamber missing, showing the septal surface (especially at right) with its undulating lobes and saddles.

The ancestors of coleoids (including most modern cephalopods) and the ancestors of the modern nautilus, had diverged by the Floian Age of the Early Ordovician Period, over 470 million years ago. We know this because the orthocerids were the first known representatives of the neocephalopoda,[36] were ultimately the ancestors of

ammonoids and coleoids, and had appeared by the Floian.[26] It is widely held that the Bactritida, a Silurian–Triassic group of orthocones, are paraphyletic to the coleoids and ammonoids – that is, the latter groups arose from within the Bactritida.[37]: 393  An increase in the diversity of the coleoids and ammonoids is observed around the start of the Devonian period, and corresponds with a profound increase in fish diversity. This could represent the origin of the two derived groups.[37]

Unlike most modern cephalopods, most ancient varieties had protective shells. These shells at first were conical but later developed into curved nautiloid shapes seen in modern nautilus species. It is thought that competitive pressure from fish forced the shelled forms into deeper water, which provided an evolutionary pressure towards shell loss and gave rise to the modern coleoids, a change which led to greater metabolic costs associated with the loss of buoyancy, but which allowed them to recolonise shallow waters.[13]: 36  The loss of the shell may also have resulted from evolutionary pressure to increase manoeuvrability, resulting in a more fish-like habit.[38]: 289  This pressure may have increased as a result of the increased complexity of fish in the late Palaeozoic, increasing the competitive pressure.[38]: 289  Internal shells still exist in many non-shelled living cephalopod groups but most truly shelled cephalopods, such as the ammonites, became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous.

Early fossils

The Early Devonian Naefiteuthis has been interpreted as the earliest fossil coleoid, and its shell may be in a partly internalized state.[37] Belemnoids proper appear slightly later in the Early Devonian, and represent the first unambiguous coleoids.[31]

The Mazon Creek biota contains a decapod, Jeletzkya, which had ten arms, but the status of its shell is ambiguous as it has not been extracted from the concretion that preserves the only fossil. Accordingly, it has been interpreted as both an internal and an external shell; the specimen may represent a 'squid' or a belemnoid,[31] although due to preservation its affinities are not known well.[32]

The Late Mississippian Bear Gulch Limestone contains some important genera of early coleoids. Gordoniconus has large internal conch which looks similar to external shell that can be seen in bactritid, and this genus probably shows how external shell become into internal conch.[39] Syllipsimopodi is considered as belonging to Octopodiformes which contains modern octopuses and vampire squids.[32]

Organ origins

The tentacles of the ancestral cephalopod developed from the mollusc's foot;[40] the ancestral state is thought to have had five pairs of tentacles which surrounded the mouth.[40] Smell-detecting organs evolved very early in the cephalopod lineage.[40]

The earliest cephalopods,[b] like Nautilus and some coeloids, appeared to be able to propel themselves forwards by directing their jet backwards.[38]: 289  Because they had an external shell, they would not have been able to generate their jets by contracting their mantle, so must have used alternate methods, such as by contracting their funnels or moving the head in and out of the chamber.[38]: 289 

Exceptional preservation

The preservation of cephalopod soft parts is not entirely unusual; soft-bodied fossils, especially of coeloids (squid), are relatively widespread in the Jurassic,

Francis Creek shale.[43] Putative cephalopod egg fossils have also been documented.[44]

Footnotes

  1. ^ a b Endogastric means the shell is curved so as the ventral or lower side is longitudinally concave (belly in); exogastric means the shell is curved so as the ventral side is longitudinally convex (belly out). Exogastric coiling allows the funnel to be pointed backwards, beneath the shell.[23]
  2. ^ Ordovician orthocone nautiloids are the first for which trace fossil evidence is available.

References

  1. ^ a b Dzik, J. (1981). "Origin of the cephalopoda" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Toe. 26 (2): 161–191.
  2. ^
    S2CID 4421029. Archived from the original
    on 2016-01-27.
  3. PMID 33758350
    .
  4. ^
    doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.12.015
    .
  5. ^ Begtson, Stefan (1970). "The Lower Cambrian fossil Tommotia". Lethaia. 3 (4): 363–392.
    doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.1970.tb00829.x
    .
  6. S2CID 128877531
    .
  7. ^
    ISBN 978-0-12-751412-3
    .
  8. PMID 16675549
    .
  9. S2CID 37343813
    .
  10. S2CID 85744624
    .
  11. ^ Lemche, H.; Wingstrand, K.G. (1959). "The anatomy of Neopilina galatheae Lemche, 1957 (Mollusca, Tryblidiacea)" (Link to free full text + plates). Galathea Rep. 3: 9–73.
  12. ^ a b c Wingstrand, K.G. (1985). "On the anatomy and relationships of recent Monoplacophora" (Link to free full text + plates). Galathea Rep. 16: 7–94.
  13. ^
    ISBN 978-0-470-99531-0
    .
  14. ^
    doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00644.x
    .
  15. ^ a b Majewske, Otto P. (1974). Recognition of invertebrate fossil fragments in rocks and thin sections. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill. p. 76 – via Google Books.
  16. doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.2010.00253.x
    .
  17. S2CID 85744624
    .
  18. ^
    S2CID 128682549
    .
  19. ^
    ISSN 0091-7613
    .
  20. S2CID 2767810
    .
  21. ISSN 0810-8889
    .
  22. doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.1973.tb01199.x
    .
  23. ^
    S2CID 128629737
    .
  24. ^ Wells, M.J.; O'Dor, R.K. (July 1991). "Jet Propulsion and the Evolution of the Cephalopods". Bulletin of Marine Science. 49 (1): 419–432.
  25. ISBN 978-0-632-06048-1
    .
  26. ^
    PMID 19789709
    .
  27. JSTOR 1302218
    .
  28. doi:10.1130/0091-7613(1993)021<0805:LCFVTW>2.3.CO;2
    .
  29. ^ Hagadorn, J.W.; Waggoner, B.M. (2002). "The Early Cambrian problematic fossil Volborthella: New insights from the Basin and Range". In Corsetti, F.A. (ed.). Proterozoic-Cambrian of the Great Basin and Beyond, Pacific Section (PDF). SEPM Book. Vol. 93. Society for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM). pp. 135–150. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 October 2008. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
  30. ^
    JSTOR 1304159
    .
  31. ^
    doi:10.1111/1475-4983.00155
    .
  32. ^
    PMID 35260548
    .
  33. S2CID 85622212
    .
  34. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2012.06.023
    .
  35. S2CID 4409157
    .
  36. ^ Kröger, Björn (2006). "Early growth-stages and classification of orthoceridan Cephalopods of the Darriwillian (Middle Ordovician) of Baltoscandia". Lethaia. 39 (2): 129–139.
    doi:10.1080/00241160600623749. Archived from the original
    on 2012-10-20.
  37. ^
    doi:10.2989/025776198784126287
    .
  38. ^
    ISBN 0-12-728702-7
  39. PMID 31372519
    .
  40. ^
    S2CID 13109195
    .
  41. ^ Kear, A.J.; Briggs, D.E.G.; Donovan, D.T. (1995). "Decay and fossilization of non-mineralized tissue in coleoid cephalopods" (PDF). Palaeontology. 38 (1): 105–132. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 September 2011. Retrieved 21 April 2009.
  42. S2CID 130195674
    .
  43. doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.1987.tb02028.x.[permanent dead link
    ]
  44. doi:10.1111/j.1502-3931.2008.00133.x
    .

Further reading
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_of_cephalopods&oldid=1215025204"