Understanding behaviour through theoretical morphologythe case of helical‑shaped burrows

  1. Miquel De Renzi 1
  2. Eduardo Mayoral 2
  1. 1 Universitat de València
    info
    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

    Geographic location of the organization Universitat de València
  2. 2 Universidad de Huelva
    info
    Universidad de Huelva

    Huelva, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03a1kt624

    Geographic location of the organization Universidad de Huelva
Journal:
Journal of iberian geology: an international publication of earth sciences

ISSN: 1886-7995,  1698-6180

Year of publication: 2024

Issue Title: A tribute to Professor Federico Olóriz

Volume: 50

Issue: 3

Pages: 549-566

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1007/S41513-024-00249-7 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Journal of iberian geology: an international publication of earth sciences

Abstract

Helical burrows are well known from the fossil record (Gyrolithes, produced by invertebrates, being the most frequent in the marine record, while Daimonelix or devil’s corkscrew, created by vertebrates, being the equivalent in the continental record) and refect a typical behaviour. Mostly, they approach the form of a circular helix (CH), although conical helices can also be found. An ideal helical surface consists of a circular generating curve (GC), generally similar to an ellipse, the centre of which traces a CH. To avoid overlapping of successive whorls, this surface follows strict constraints, otherwise, the structure would collapse (forbidden forms). This paper presents a model for describing the burrows that includes four dimensionless parameters based on the CH: relative pitch, adaxial ratio, helix slope and eccentricity. These parameters are not independent, but linked by an equation. It is possible to compute their critical values, which determine the appearance of forbidden forms. The conceptual framework of theoretical morphology enables possible and forbidden forms to be systematically simulated by starting from a circular GC and changing the parameters’ values. Due to the equation governing these parameters, the theoretical morphospace that they determine cannot include a continuous gradation of all possible arrangements of their values. The parameters are also analysed in terms of their behavioural and biological meaning; in this way, the meaningful parameters are found to be eccentricity, helix slope and adaxial ratio. Relative pitch and the angle of the whorl of ichnolo‑ gists are a geometrical consequence of the former. All these issues are applied to a sample of real specimens of Gyrolithes.

View funding

Funding information

Funders

Bibliographic References

  • De Renzi, M. (2017). David Malcolm Raup (1933–2015) at the start‑ ing point of a new paradigm for palaeontology. Spanish Journal of Palaeontology, 32(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.7203/sjp. 32.1.17036
  • De Renzi, M., Palmqvist, P., & Mayoral, E. (2017). Theoretical morphology and ichnofossils: Gyrolithes as a case study. In L. O’Dogherty (Ed.), XXIII jornadas de paleontología. Sociedad española de paleontología, Cádiz (pp. 45–48).
  • Doody, J. S., James, H., Colyvas, K., Mchenry, C. R., & Clulow, S. (2015). Deep nesting in a lizard, déjà vu devil’s corkscrews: First helical reptile burrow and deepest vertebrate nest. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 116, 13–26. https://doi.org/10. 1111/bij.12589
  • Doody, J. S., James, H., Ellis, R., Gibson, N., Raven, M., Mahoney, S., Hamilton, D. G., Rhind, D., Clulow, S., & Mchenry, C. R. (2014). Cryptic and complex nesting in the yellow-spotted monitor, Varanus panoptes. Journal of Herpetology, 48, 363–370. https://doi. org/10.1670/13-006
  • Duckworth, R. A. (2009). The role of behavior in evolution: A search for mechanism. Evolutionary Ecology, 23, 513–531. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10682-008-9252-6
  • Dworschak, P. C., & Rodrigues, S. A. (1997). A modern analogue for the trace fossil Gyrolithes: Burrows of the thalassinidean shrimp Axianassa australis. Lethaia, 30, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1502-3931.1997.tb00443.x
  • Gerber, S. (2017). The geometry of morphospaces: Lessons from the classic Raup shell coiling model. Biological Reviews, 92, 1142– 1155. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12276
  • Gould, S. J. (1970). Evolutionary paleontology and the science of form. Earth-Science Reviews, 6, 77–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/0012- 8252(70)90027-9
  • Laing, B. A., Buatois, L. A., Mángano, M. G., Narbonne, G. M., & Gougeon, R. C. (2018). Gyrolithes from the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary section in Fortune Head, Newfoundland, Canada: Exploring the onset of complex burrowing. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 495, 171–185. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2018.01.010
  • Lugn, A. L. (1941). The origin of Daemonelix. The Journal of Geology, 49, 673–696. https://doi.org/10.1086/625001
  • Lӑzureanu, C. (2014). Spirals on surfaces of revolution. Visual Mathematics, 16, 1–10.
  • Martin, L. D., & Bennett, D. K. (1977). The burrows of the Miocene beaver palaeocastor, Western Nebraska, U.S.A. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 22, 173–193. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0031-0182(77)90027-X
  • Mataix, C. (1957). Tratado de geometría analítica. Dossat S.A.
  • Mayoral, E. (1986). Gyrolithes vidali nov. icnoesp. (Plioceno marino) en el sector suroccidental de la Cuenca del Guadalquivir (Área de Palos de la Frontera, Huelva, España). Estudios Geológicos, 42, 211–223. https://doi.org/10.3989/egeol.86422-3749
  • McGhee, G. R. (1998). Theoretical morphology. Columbia University Press.
  • Meyer, R. C. (1999). Helical burrows as a palaeoclimate response: Daimonelix by Palaeocastor. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 147, 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0031-0182(98)00157-6
  • Raup, D. M. (1966). Geometric analysis of shell coiling: General prob‑ lems. Journal of Paleontology, 40, 1178–1190.
  • Raup, D. M., & Michelson, A. (1965). Theoretical morphology of the coiled shell. Science, 147, 1294–1295. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.147.3663.1294
  • Raup, D. M., & Seilacher, A. (1969). Fossil foraging behavior: Com‑ puter simulation. Science, 166, 994–995. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.166.3908.994
  • Russell, E. S. (1916). Form and function: A contribution to the history of animal morphology. John Murray. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl. title.3747
  • Schultz, C. B. (1942). A review of the Daimonelix problem. Nebraska University Studies, Studies in Science and Technology, 2, 3–30.
  • Seilacher, A. (1967). Fossil behavior. Scientifc American, 217(2), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientifcamerican0867-72
  • Smith, R. M. H. (1987). Helical burrow casts of therapsid origin from the Beaufort Group (Permian) of South Africa. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 60, 155–170. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0031-0182(87)90030-7
  • Smith, R. M. H., Angielczyk, K. D., Benoit, J., & Fernandez, V. (2021). Neonate aggregation in the Permian dicynodont Diictodon (Ther‑ apsida, Anomodontia): Evidence for a reproductive function for burrows? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology. Palaeoecology, 569, 110311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2021.110311
  • Thompson, D. ’A. W. T. (1917). On growth and form. Cambridge at the University Press.
  • Toots, H. (1963). Helical burrows as fossil movement patterns. Contributions to Geology, 2(2), 129–134.
Data source: Dialnet