Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T15:31:47.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensory field maps of proetide trilobites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

Nadine V. Wilmot
Nadine V. Wilmot
Affiliation:
Nadine V. Wilmot, Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW75BD, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The sensory fields of four Wenlock trilobites Proetus (Proetus) concinnus, Warburgella (Warburgella) stokesii, Warburgella (Warburgella) scutterdinensis, and Harpidella (Harpidella) maura are described and found to be species specific. Certain features, such as the small cell polygon size, and prismatic layer comprising about one tenth of the cuticle thickness are characteristic of Order Proetida. Intraspecific variation is related to ontogenetic development, most markedly in the field of the free cheek of P. (P.) concinnus. The proetid occipital pustule may have functioned as a light-sensitive organ. The tropidium W. (W.) stokesii is a ridge with a central canal or groove, rather than a tubular structure, and probably contained a sensory receptor rather than a circulatory system. Despite microstructural distribution being species specific, it is of limited practical value in taxonomy as the fine details are easily lost during diagenesis.

Keywords

cuticlemicrostructuresensory receptor
Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 82 , Issue 3 , 1991 , pp. 183 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberti, G. K. 1967. Neue obersilurische sowie unter- und mitteldevonische Trilobiten aus Marokko, Deutschland und einigen anderen europäischen Gebieten. 2. SENCKENBERG LETH 48, 481–509.Google Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1986. Trilobite associations from the Chouteau Formation (Kinderhookian) of central Missouri. J PALEONT 60, 870–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brezinski, D. K. 1988. Trilobites of the Gilmore City Limestone (Mississippian) of Iowa. J PALEONT 62, 241–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cisne, J. L. 1970. Constantina pulcra: an unusual proetid trilobite from the Devonian of Pennsylvania. J PALEONT 44, 522–3.Google Scholar
Clarkson, E. N. K. 1975. The evolution of the eye in trilobites. FOSSILS STRATA 4, 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalingwater, J. E. 1973. Trilobite cuticle microstructure and composition. PALAEONTOLOGY 16, 827–39, pls 107-9.Google Scholar
Dalman, J. W. 1827. Om Palaederna, eller de så kallade Trilobiterna. K SVENSKA VENTENSK AKAD HANDL (for 1826), 113-152, 226–294, pls 1-6.Google Scholar
Edgecombe, G. D. & Chatterton, B. D. E. 1987. Heterochrony in the Silurian radiation of encrinurine trilobites. LETHAIA 20, 337–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evitt, W. R. & Tripp, R. P. 1977. Silicified middle Ordovician trilobites from the families Encrinuridae and Staurocephalidae. PALAEONTOGR ABT A 157, Lfg. 4-6, 109–74.Google Scholar
Fleminger, A. 1973. Pattern, number, variability and taxonomic significance of integumental organs (sensilla and glandular pores) in the genus Eucalanus (Copepoda, Calanoida). FISH BULL 71, 965–1010.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1979. Early Ordovician trilobites from the Catoche Formation (St George Group), Western Newfoundland. BULL GEOL SURV CAN 321, 61–114, pls 23-37.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1985. Pelagic trilobites as an example of deducing the life habits of extinct arthropods. TRANS R SOC EDINB 76, 219–30.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1986. The type species of the Ordovician trilobite Symphysurus: systematics, functional morphology and terrace ridges. PALAONT Z 60, 3-4, 12. Abb. 255-75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortey, R. A. & Chatterton, B. D. E. 1988. Classification of the trilobite suborder Asaphina. PALAEONTOLOGY, 31, 165–222, pls 17-19.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. & Clarkson, E. N. K. 1976. The function of the glabellar ‘tubercle’ in Nileus and other trilobites. LETHAIA 9, 101–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, K. J. & Fordham, B. G. 1981. Mid-Cautleyan (Ashgill Series) trilobites and facies in the English Lake District. PALAEOGEOG PALAEOCLIMATOL PALAEOECOL 34, 137–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. 1976. The sensory fields and mode of life of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) (Trilobita). TRANS R SOC EDINB 69, 337–67, pls 1-4.Google Scholar
Murchison, R. I. 1839. The Silurian System, founded on geological researches in the counties of Salop, Hereford, Radnor, Montgomery, Caermarthen, Brecon, Pembroke, Monmouth, Gloucester, Worcestor, and Stafford; with descriptions of the coalfields and overlying formations. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okada, Y. 1981. Development of cell arrangement in ostracod carapaces. PALAEOBIOLOGY 7, 276–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okada, Y. 1982. Structure and cuticle formation of the reticulated carapace of the ostracode Bicornucythere bisanensis. LETHAIA 15, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, R. M. 1973, British Ordovician and Silurian Proetidae (Trilobita). Palaeontographical Society Monograph.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Přibyl, A. & Vaněk, J. 1987. Phylogeny of several lineages of the trilobite family Tropidocoryphidae (Proetacea). In Pokorny, V. (ed.) Contribution of Czechoslovak palaeontology to evolutionary science. 1945-1985, pp. 62–72. Prague.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, K. T. 1987. Sedimentology, palaeontology and diagenesis of the Much Wenlock Limestone Formation. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Aston University.Google Scholar
Šnajdr, M. 1987. Bohemian Lower Devonian Odontochilinae. SBOR GEOL VED PALAEONT 28, 9–60.Google Scholar
Stitt, J. H. 1976. Functional morphology and life habits of the Late Cambrian trilobite Stenopilus pronus Raymond. J PALEONT 50, 561–76.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. T. 1978. BRITISH WENLOCK TRILOBITES (PART 1). Palaeontographical Society Monograph. (1) 1–56, pls 1-14.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. T. 1979. Trilobite associations in the British Wenlock. SPEC PUBLS GEOL SOC LOND 8, 447–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripp, R. P. 1957. The trilobite Encrinurus multisegmentatus (Portlock) and allied Middle and Upper Ordovician species. PALAEONTOLOGY 1, 60–72, pls 11 and 12.Google Scholar
Westrop, S. R. 1983. The life habits of the Ordovician illaenine trilobite Bumastoides. LETHAIA 16, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmot, N. V. 1988. Design and function of trilobite exoskeletons. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Aston University.Google Scholar
Wilmot, N. V. 1990a. Cuticular structure of the agnostine trilobite Homagnostus obesus. LETHAIA 23, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmot, N. V. 1990b. Primary and diagenetic microstructures in trilobite exoskeletons. HISTORICAL BIOLOGY 4, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmot, N. V. 1990c. Biomechanics of trilobite exoskeletons. PALAEONTOLOGY 33, 749–768.Google Scholar
Zell, P. D. 1989. Burrowed Phacops rana from the Moscow Formation of New York. J PALEONT 62, 311–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar