Paleontology - Fall 2002
Echinoderms
The echinoderms are an amazingly diverse and varied phylum.
At one extreme, some authors recognize about 25 classes! Most of these are extinct,
small, and restricted to the lower Paleozoic. A few are still with us today,
several were remarkably abundant at different times. Echinoderms also have some
rather unique features: most have a five-fold symmetry, the water vascular system
is unique (and adaptable), and the level of sensory and neural development is
rather low for such a successful post-Paleozoic group. As you might expect from
this preamble, there are a large number of named morphological features and
ideas about evolutionary relations.
We will focus our study on a few major groups: echinoids, holothurians, asterozoans,
crinoids, and blastoids. You will encounter discussions regarding cystoids (closely
related to blastoids) and carpoids (a.k.a. calcichordates). Please do not get
too bogged down in the morphological terminology and evolutionary relations.
Classification of the Phylum
The sheer diversity and disparity of echinoderms result in wide differences
of opinion regarding the most appropriate high-level classification. For example,
blastoids and crinoids are considered as separate subphylums in the text but
other authors place them into one subphylum as separate classes. Another result
is the use of "extra" classification levels - see the echinoid classification
on pages 269-270! Everyone agrees that the echinoderms are a monophyletic group
(unlike the case with arthropods) because of their unique 5-fold symmetry. However
some groups may be polyphyletic. These uncertainties illustrate the interpretive
nature of taxonomic classification schemes.
The text classification is summarized here. The subphylums Crinozoa and Blastozoa
are often referred to collectively as the "pelmetazoans". Note that
several early Paleozoic classes are not included. They are relatively rare as
fossils and may represent echinoderm "experiments" that left no descendants.
Some of these odd, short-lived classes combine morphologic features of other
classes, making their taxonomic placement difficult. (Consult the Treatise for
more information if you are interested.)
Notes on the major groups
Echinoids (sea urchins)
Echinoids are a remarkable group (in fact, they are my personal favorite). There
are less than 1000 specimens from the Paleozoic, and only about two genera survived
the end-Permian extinction. Despite this auspicious history, the echinoids diversified
into over 3600 species during the Mesozoic. Keep in mind that echinoids have
no head - at best there is a mouth-anus axis, extremely limited sense organs,
no brain, few organs, etc. - but still did remarkably well in the post-Paleozoic.
Echinoid morphology will probably be new to you. You need to keep a few basic
points in mind. First, an echinoid skeleton consist of a series of plates that
cover a sack-like body. The skeleton has pores through plates for the water
vascular system (tube feet and madreporite) and genital pores. Larger openings
between plates are for the mouth and anus (periproct). Second, echinoids are
either regular (five-fold symmetry, mouth centrally located on the bottom and
anus on the top) or irregular (bilateral symmetry superimposed, mouth shifted
forward and anus to rear). Sand dollars are a group of irregular echinoids that
are even more modified. Third, the echinoid manipulates its environment primarily
by the use of tube feet and external spines. These are remarkably specialized
in some groups.
The text presents a description of a regular (Echinus) and two irregular
(Echinocardium and Mellita) echinoids. Here are some of the main
morphological features to note:
The classification (p. 269-270) is rather complex. It
illustrates a classification that uses a cladistic approach to define major
groups (although it retains paraphyletic groups). Notice that the post-Paleozoic
diversification is essentially the Subclass Eucechinoidea. (Take a look at the
classification and Fig. 9.7 with the objective of understanding the relations
between major groups.)
The subclasses are briefly discussed. Subclass Perischoechinoidea is the primitive
group - note the low diversity, flexible tests. Subclass Cidaroidea have some
unusual spine types. Subclass Euchinoidea are the main feature - you will find
a lot of discussion regarding the function and evolution of specific morphological
features. Instead of getting bogged down in all the details, I would recommend
trying to identify the morphological change (and what it may mean functionally)
for each section. (For example: tube feet become more variable as they became
modified for respiration, funnel building, and locomotion.) The final section
on Micraster is significant because Micraster has been studied
for over a century. Morphological changes were documented by Rowe - since then
their functional significance and evolutionary relations have been clarified.
In this way, this has become a "case study" of great utility.
Holothurians (sea cucumbers - quite the nickname!)
These "nasty green warty things" need not detain us long. You should
note two things: (1) their life habits, and (2) the nature of their preservable
skeleton.
Edrioasteroidea
This is a rare Paleozoic group of unusual echinoderms (for which we have no
samples). The main point here is their unusual morphology (see Fig. 9.32). They
may have an important place in the overall evolution of the echinoderms (section
9.8) since they may be the ancestral group of Subphylum Echinozoa.
Subphylum Asterozoa (starfish and brittle stars)
You are probably familiar with some representatives of this subphylum - the
starfish (Subclass Asteroidea). Starfish are highly effective predators - note
how they go about consuming bivalves. This is a good example of how echinoderms
evolved into a different ecological niche. The brittle stars (Subclass Ophiuroidea)
are also quite interesting - the text suggests their main morphological development.
Crinoids (sea lilies)
Crinoids differ from the groups considered so far in that they are sessile and
attached. The morphology is rather similar throughout the group, although the
many fine variations provide ample room for classification - you will notice
the information on calyx morphology (infraradials, supraradials, monocyclic
vs. dicyclic) later in the discussion. The opening section provides you a good
introduction to how they lived. The main morphological features are:
The descriptions of the main groups of crinoids is a
bit term-rich. I would focus on the information on crinoid ecology (mostly in
the last few pages).
Subphylum Blastoidoa: Cystoids and Blastoids
This subclass has two major stemmed groups: the cystoids and the blastoids.
These are united by having internal respiration using pore structures that allowed
water into the calyx. The pores of cystoids (Diploporita and Rhombifera) are
used in their classification (see Fig. 9.45) but (please) do not worry about
all the terms. Focus on the ecology (p. 304).
The blastoids are a little more familiar (and common). Here the respiratory
pores are aligned along ambulacra (water vascular system). Here are three terms
to know:
So how did this work? Water entered through small hydropores,
flowed along the hydrospires, and exited out the spiracles. Feeding was via
the brachioles - food was passed to the central food groove and ingested at
the mouth (top of calyx). The ecology of blastoids is relatively simple.
Subclass Homalozoa (carpoids or calcichordates)
This is truly a bizarre group, even for the echinoderms (or are they vertebrates).
This section is quite technical but it boils down to one question: are the carpoids
early vertebrates? Vertebrates are more similar to echinoderms than any other
living invertebrate group (in terms of larval development and organization).
Jeffries and co-workers suggested that the carpoids are an offshoot of echinoderms
that are (in fact) vertebrates. Even a quick read of the text will reveal that
this is controversial - alternative interpretations of the morphology are identified
(mouth or anus?). This is a intriguing issue, but it has not be resolved as
of yet.
Echinoderm evolutionary relations
The final part of this chapter serves to wind up this fascinating group. The
four sections deal with some broader issues: (1) evolution of echinoderms (Fig.
9.51) - quite a challenge in light of the sheer range of body plans; (2) the
central role of tube feet in the phylum; (3) what is the point of five-fold
symmetry anyway?; and (4) convergent evolution - recall this is an argument
for functional significance.
Congratulations - you made it through the chapter!