Back to all available

Borings in an oyster provide the first evidence of barnacles (Cirripedia) from the Early Cretaceous in northwestern Gondwana

marine-biology
paleontology

Abstract

Ichnofossils are sometimes the only evidence documenting the existence of certain groups of organisms within past ecosystems. The Early Cretaceous marine ecosystems of northwestern Gondwana were highly diverse, comprising vertebrates, invertebrates, microorganisms, and plants. Despite this paleobiodiversity, no records or evidence of barnacles (Cirripedia) have previously been reported from this region of South America. Here, I describe the first record of barnacles from the Early Cretaceous (Valanginian) of northwestern Gondwana, represented by more than 130 borings attributed to a new ichnospecies of the genus Rogerella, preserved on a complete shell of the gryphaeid Amphidonte (Ceratostreon) boussingaulti. The new ichnospecies, Rogerella virgeneii, is diagnosed by borings that are triangular in transverse section, with the deepest point located in the posterior part of the chamber. This discovery underscores the significance of detailed ichnological analyses for reconstructing the complexity of ancient benthic interactions and for elucidating the ecological strategies of sessile suspension feeders through geologic time.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].