Back to all available

Late Pleistocene pelagic gastropods of southern Taiwan: diversity, first fossil records, and regional affinity

biodiversity
biogeography
paleontology
taxonomy
zoology

Abstract

Holoplanktonic gastropods (pteropods and heteropods) are major components of modern Indo–West Pacific (IWP) plankton, yet their fossil record in this region remains sparse. Expanding the spatial and temporal coverage of fossil data is essential for reconstructing dispersal pathways of pelagic fauna within the IWP and understanding the origins of present-day diversity. Here, we describe a newly discovered Late Pleistocene assemblage of pelagic gastropods from southern Taiwan. The assemblage comprises 14 pteropod and eight heteropod taxa, most representing the first fossil records of holoplanktonic gastropods from Taiwan. We also evaluate variation in diversity between depositional environments of the Szekou Formation. Species richness and density do not differ significantly between restricted and open lagoon settings, contrasting with patterns reported for benthic bivalves. To place these findings in a broader context, the newly reported assemblages were analyzed together with other Pleistocene assemblages across the IWP region. Only weak geographic and temporal separation was detected, suggesting a relatively cosmopolitan community composition in subtropical waters during the Pleistocene, likely reflecting low temperature variability despite glacial–interglacial cycles. Indicator species analysis further suggests a later arrival at higher latitudes for the pteropods Telodiacria quadridentata and Heliconoides inflata, which show associations with late Pleistocene sites, whereas Styliola subula displays a distribution resembling its modern range, being most closely associated with assemblages from Taiwan and southern Japan.
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].