No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ghosts of the past, present, and future in brachiopod systematics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 May 2016
Abstract
Three historical phases can be distinguished in the study of brachiopod systematics over the past 75 years. Prior to 1956, systematic neontologists and paleontologists struggled to reconcile differences in perceived evolutionary patterns (and thus classifications) based largely on static morphological differences observed separately among living brachiopods and among fossil brachiopods. Following 1956, patterns of morphological distribution began to be interpreted relative to the processes by which they were formed, and a more dynamic view of brachiopod phylogeny and classification resulted. Over the past decade, newer methodologies (phylogenetic systematics) have allowed older phylogenetic hypotheses to be tested and evaluated. The major challenges that brachiopod systematists now face are not unique to brachiopods; they concern improving the methods of phylogeny (and classification) reconstruction so that all the sources of data available to paleontologists can be utilized more effectively. In the future, I predict that more intensified, global fossil collecting, together with further investigation of the embryology and development of brachiopods, and molecular systematic research, will play an increasingly larger role in revising the classification currently in use.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Paleontological Society
References
Aguinaldo, A. M. A., Turbeville, J. M., Linford, L. S., Rivera, M. C., Garey, J. R., Raff, R. A., and Lake, J. A.
1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods, and other moulting animals. Nature, 387:489–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmad, F.
2000. Middle Jurassic brachiopod faunas from Northwestern Jordan. Neues Jahrbuch Geology Paleontology, 5:301–313.Google Scholar
Alroy, J.
1995. Continuous track analysis: a new phylogenetic and biogeographic method. Systematic Biology, 44:152–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, F., and Carlson, S. J.
1998. Evolución y relaciones filogenéticas entre los grupos de mayor rango taxonómico de atíridos y otros ‘braquiópodos articulados'. [Evolution and phylogenetic relationships among athyridide higher taxa and other ‘articulated brachiopods'.] Revista Espanola de Paleontología, 13(2):209–234Google Scholar
Baker, P. G.
1990. The classification, origin and phylogeny of thecideidine brachiopods. Palaeontology, 33:175–191.Google Scholar
Barrande, J.
1879. Systěme Silurien du centre de la Bohěme, Pt. 1, Recherches paléontologiques, v. 5, classe des Mollusques. Ordre des Brachiopodes, 226 p., Praha.Google Scholar
Beecher, C. E.
1891. Development of the Brachiopoda, Pt. 1, Introduction. American Journal of Science, series 3, 41:343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, W. C.
1938. Homoeomorphy in the brachiopod genus Acrotreta
. Bulletin, Geological Society of America, Washington, 49:1909–1910.Google Scholar
Boucot, A. J., Johnson, J. G., Pitrat, C. W., and Staton, R. D.
1965. Spiriferida, p. 632–728. In
Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Bronn, H. G.
1862. Die Klassen und Ordnungen der Weichthiere (Malacazoa), volume 3, Kopflose Weichthiere, 518 p., Leipzig and Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Brunton, C. H. C.
1972. The shell structure of chonetacean brachiopods and their ancestors. Bulletin British Museum Natural History (Geol.), 21:1–26.Google Scholar
Brunton, C. H. C., Alvarez, F., and MacKinnon, D. I.
1996. Morphological terms used to describe the cardinalia of articulate brachiopods: homologies and recommendations. Historical Biology, 11:9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, H. N.
1996. Explicitness, stability, and universality in the phylogenetic definition and usage of taxon names: a case study of the phylogenetic taxonomy of the Carnivora (Mammalia). Systematic Biology, 45:174–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, S. J.
1991a. Phylogenetic relationships among brachiopod higher taxa, p. 3–10. In
MacKinnon, D. I., Lee, D. E., and Campbell, J. D. (eds.), Brachiopods Through Time. Proceedings of the Second International Brachiopod Congress, 1990, A. A. Balkema, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Carlson, S. J.
1991b. A phylogenetic perspective on articulate brachiopod diversity and the Permo- Triassic extinctions, p. 119–142. In
Dudley, E. C. (ed.), The Unity of Evolutionary Biology. Volume I. Dioscorides Press, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
Carlson, S. J.
1992. Evolutionary trends in the articulate brachiopod hinge mechanism. Paleobiology, 18:344–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, S. J.
1994. Investigating brachiopod phylogeny and classification—response to Popov et al. 1993. Lethaia, 26:383–384.Google Scholar
Carlson, S. J.
1995. Phylogenetic relationships among extant brachiopods. Cladistics, 11:131–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, S. J.
1996. Revision and review of the order Pentamerida, p. 53–58. In
Copper, P. and Jin, J. (eds.), Brachiopods. Proceedings of the Third International Brachiopod Congress, 1995, A. A. Balkema, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Carlson, S. J., and Leighton, L. R. In press. Incorporating stratigraphic data in the phylogenetic analysis of the Rhynchonelliformea. In
Brunton, C. H. C., Cocks, L. R. M., and Long, S. L. (eds.), Brachiopods past and present. Proceedings of the Millenium Brachiopod Congress, 2000, The Systematics Association Special Volume Series. Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
Carter, J. L., Johnson, J. G., Gourvennec, R., and Hong-Fei, Hou. 1994. A revised classification of the spiriferid brachiopods. Annals of Carnegie Museum, 63:327–374.Google Scholar
Cloud, P. E.
1941. Homoeomorphy and a remarkable illustration. American Journal of Science, 239:899–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clyde, W. C., and Fisher, D. C.
1997. Comparing the fit of stratigraphic and morphologic data in phylogenetic analysis. Paleobiology, 23:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B. L.
2000. Monophyly of brachiopods and phoronids: reconciliation of molecular evidence with Linnaean classification (the subphylum Phoroniformea nov.). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 267(1440):225–231Google Scholar
Cohen, B. L., and Gawthrop, A. B.
1996. Brachiopod molecular phylogeny, p. 81–88. In
Copper, P. and Jin, J. (eds.), Brachiopods. Proceedings of the Third International Brachiopod Congress, 1995, A. A. Balkema, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Cohen, B. L., and Gawthrop, A. B.
1997. The brachiopod genome, p. 189–211. In
Kaesler, R. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H, revised, Brachiopoda, Volume 1, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, Colorado and Kansas.Google Scholar
Cohen, B. L., Gawthrop, A. B., and Cavalier-Smith, T.
1998. Molecular phylogeny of brachiopods and phoronids based on nuclear-encoded small subunit ribosomal RNA gene sequences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 353(1378):2039–2061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B. L., Balfe, P., Cohen, M., and Curry, G. B.
1991. Molecular evolution and morphological speciation in North-Atlantic brachiopods (Terebratulina spp.). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 69:2903–2911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B. L., Balfe, P., Cohen, M., and Curry, G. B.
1993. Molecular and morphometric variation in European populations of the articulate brachiopod Terebratulina retusa
. Marine Biology, 115:105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, B. L., Stark, S., Gawthrop, A. B., and others. 1998. Comparison of articulate brachiopod nuclear and mitochondrial gene trees leads to a clade-based redefinition of protostomes (Protostomozoa) and deuterostomes (Deuterostomozoa). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265:475.Google Scholar
Conway Morris, S.
1993. The fossil record and the early evolution of the Metazoa. Nature, 361:219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway Morris, S., and Peel, J. S.
1995. Articulated halkieriids from the Lower Cambrian of North Greenland and their role in early protostome evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 347:305–358.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. A.
1930. The brachiopod genus Pionodema and its homoeomorphs. Journal of Paleontology, 4:369–382.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. A.
1944. Phylum Brachiopoda, p. 277–365. In
Shimer, H. W. and Shrock, R. R. (eds.), Index Fossils of North America. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. A.
1956. Chazyan and related brachiopods. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 127:1–1245.Google Scholar
Cooper, G. A.
1970. Generic characters in brachiopods. The genus: a basic unit in paleontology. Proceedings of the North American Paleontological Convention, 1969:194–263.Google Scholar
Copper, P., and Gourvennec, R.
1996. Evolution of the spire-bearing brachiopods (Ordovician-Jurassic), p. 81–88. In
Copper, P. and Jin, J. (eds.), Brachiopods. Proceedings of the Third International Brachiopod Congress, 1995, A. A. Balkema, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Davidson, T.
1884. A monograph of the British fossil Brachiopoda. Palaeontographical Society, 5:243–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J.
1990. Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names. Systematic Zoology, 39:307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J.
1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23:449–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Rosa, R., Grenier, J. K., Andreeva, T., and others. 1999. Hox genes in brachiopods and priapulids and protostome evolution. Nature, 399(6738):772–776Google Scholar
Deshayes, G. P.
1836. In
Lamark, Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertebres (second edition) volume 7, 735 p. J. B. Bailliere, Paris.Google Scholar
Diaz-Martinez, E., Mamet, B., Isaacson, P. E., and others. 2000. Permian marine sedimentation in northern Chile: new paleontological evidence from the Juan de Morales Formation, and regional palaeogeographic implications. Journal of South American Earth Science, 13:511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eernisse, D. J., Albert, J. S., and Anderson, F. E.
1992. Annelida and Arthropoda are not sister taxa: a phylogenetic analysis of spiralian metazoan morphology. Systematic Biology, 41:305–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endo, K., and Curry, G. B.
1991. Molecular and morphological taxonomy of a Recent brachiopod genus Terebratulina
, p. 101–108. In
MacKinnon, D. I., Lee, D. E., and Campbell, J. D. (eds.), Brachiopods Through Time. Proceedings of the Second International Brachiopod Congress, 1990, A. A. Balkema, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Endo, K., Curry, G. B., Quinn, R., and others. 1994. Re-interpretation of terebratulide phylogeny based on immunological data. Palaeontology, 37:349–373.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J.
1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Systematic Zoology, 27:401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J.
1983. Parsimony in systematics: biological and statistical issues. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 14:313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, D. C.
1991. Phylogenetic analysis and its application in evolutionary paleobiology, p. 103–122. In
Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W. (eds.), Analytical Paleobiology, Short Course in Paleontology, No. 7. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C.
1992. Stratigraphic parsimony, p. 124–129. In
Maddison, W. and Maddison, D., MacClade, (eds.), Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution, version 3.0., Sinauer & Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C.
1994. Stratocladistics: morphological and temporal patterns and their relation to phylogenetic process, p. 103–112. In
Grande, L. and Rieppel, O. (eds.), Interpreting the Hierarchy of Nature—From Systematic Patterns to Evolutionary Theories. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Sepkoski, J. J.
1999. Absolute measures of the completeness of the fossil record. Nature, 398:415–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, D. L., Fisher, D. C., and Leighton, L. R.
1999. Reconstructing phylogeny with and without temporal data. Science, 284:1816–1819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, G.
1993. Regional specification during embryogenesis in the articulate brachiopod Terebratalia
. Developmental Biology, 160:196–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, G.
1994. The endocrine pathway responsible for oocyte maturation in the inarticulate brachiopod Glottidia
. Biological Bulletin, 186:263–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, G.
1995. Regional specification during embryogenesis in the inarticulate brachiopod Glottidia
. Developmental Biology, 172:15–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, G.
1997. Evolutionary changes in developmental mechanisms in the absence of changes in cleavage pattern, fate maps, and mode of gastrulation in phosphatic brachiopods. Developmental Biology, 186:A9.Google Scholar
Freeman, G.
1999. Regional specification during embryogenesis in the inarticulate brachiopod Discinisca
. Developmental Biology, 209:321–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, G.
2000. Regional specification during embryogenesis in the craniiform brachiopod Crania anomala
. Developmental Biology, 227:219–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, G., and Lundelius, J. W.
1999. Changes in the timing of mantle formation and larval life history traits in linguliform and craniiform brachiopods. Lethaia, 32:197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, P. D.
1979. The stratophenetic approach to phylogeny reconstruction in vertebrate paleontology, p. 41–77. In
Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N. (eds.), Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabau, A. W.
1931–1933. Devonian Brachiopoda of China, I. Palaeontologica Sinica (B, 111)
3:1–545.Google Scholar
Gray, J. E.
1848. On the arrangement of the Brachiopoda. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, London, 2:435–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graybeal, A.
1998. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? A simulation study. Systematic Biology, 47:9–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grobe, P., and Luter, C.
1999. Reproductive cycles and larval morphology of three Recent species of Argyrotheca (Terebratellacea: Brachiopoda) from Mediterranean submarine caves. Marine Biology, 134:595–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunt, T.
1981. Mikrostruktura rakoviny Brakhiopod Otryada Athyrida. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, 1982(4):21–35Google Scholar
Halanych, K. M., Bacheller, J. D., Aguinaldo, A. M. A., Liva, S. M., Hillis, D. M., and Lake, J. A.
1995. Evidence from 18S ribosomal DNA that the lophophorates are protostome animals. Science, 267:1641–1643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, J., and Clarke, J. M.
1892–1894. An introduction to the study of the genera of Palaeozoic Brachiopoda. Palaeontology of New York, 8(1):1–367 (1892); 8(2):1–394 (1894).Google Scholar
Hanger, R. A.
1996. Permian brachiopod paleobiogeography of South America, p. 107–109. In
Copper, P. and Jin, J. (eds.), Brachiopods. Proceedings of the Third International Brachiopod Congress, 1995, A. A. Balkema, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Holmer, L. E., and Popov, L. E.
1996. Early Palaeozoic radiation and classification of organo-phosphatic brachiopods, p. 117–122. In
Copper, P. and Jin, J. (eds.), Brachiopods. Proceedings of the Third International Brachiopod Congress, 1995, A. A. Balkema, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Holmer, L. E., and Popov, L. E.
2000. Lingulata, p. 30–146. In
Kaesler, R. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H, revised, Brachiopoda, Volume 2, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, Colorado and Kansas.Google Scholar
Holmer, L. E., Popov, L. E., Bassett, M. G., and Laurie, J.
1995. Phylogenetic analysis and ordinal classification of the Brachiopoda. Palaeontology, 38:713–741.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P.
1991. When are fossils better than extant taxa in phylogenetic analysis? Systematic Zoology, 40:458–469.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P.
1994. Comparing the stratigraphic record to estimates of phylogeny. Paleobiology, 20:470–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P., and Crandall, K. A.
1997. Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28:437–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P., and Rannala, B.
1997. Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny using stratigraphic data. Paleobiology, 23:174–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P., Rannala, B., and Larget, B.
2000. A Bayesian framework for the analysis of cospeciation. Evolution, 54:352–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huxley, T. H.
1869. An Introduction to the Classification of Animals. Churchill, London.Google Scholar
Jaanusson, V.
1971. Evolution of the brachiopod hinge. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 3:33–46.Google Scholar
Jaecks, G. S., and Carlson, S. J.
2001. How phylogenetic inference can shape our view of heterochrony: examples from thecideide brachiopods. Paleobiology, 27:205–225.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitching, I. J., Forey, P. L., Humphries, C., and Williams, D. M.
1998. Cladistics (second edition). The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kool, S. P.
1993. Phylogenetic analysis of the Rapaninae (Neogastropoda: Muricidae). Malacologia, 35:155–259.Google Scholar
Lacaze-Dutheirs, H.
1861. Histoire naturelle des brachiopodes vivants de la Mediterranee. I. Histoire naturelle de la Thecidie (Thecidium mediterraneum). Annals of Natural Science and Zoology (Paris), 15:259–330.Google Scholar
Lee, D. E., Carlson, S. J., Buening, N., and Sampson, C. R. In press. Variation in the loops of two Recent species of Liothyrella (Brachiopoda; Terebratulida) from New Zealand and South Orkney Islands. In
Brunton, C. H. C., Cocks, L. R. M., and Long, S. (eds.), Brachiopods past and present. Proceedings of the Millenium Brachiopod Congress, 2000, Taylor and Francis, London.Google Scholar
Leighton, L. R.
2001. New example of Devonian predatory boreholes and the influence of brachiopod spines on predator success. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, and Palaeoecology, 165:53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luter, C.
1995. Ultrastructure of the metanephridia of Terebratulina retusa and Crania anomala (Brachiopoda). Zoomorphology, 115:99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luter, C.
1996. The median tentacle of the larva of Lingula anatina (Brachiopoda) from Queensland, Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology, 44:355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luter, C.
1998. Note: Embryonic and larval development of Calloria inconspicua (Brachiopoda, Terebratellidae). Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 28:165–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luter, C.
2000a. Ultrastructure of larval and adult setae of Brachiopoda. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 239:75–90.Google Scholar
Luter, C.
2000b. The origin of the coelom in Brachiopoda and its phylogenetic significance. Zoomorphology, 120:15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luter, C., and Bartolomaeus, T.
1997. The phylogenetic position of Brachiopoda—a comparison of morphological and molecular data. Zoologica Scripta, 26:245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, D. I.
1974. The shell structure of spiriferide Brachiopoda. Bulletin of the British Museum Natural History, 25:187–261.Google Scholar
Maddison, W. P., and Maddison, D. R.
1992. MacClade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
Morse, E.
1902. Observations on living Brachiopoda. Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History, 5:313–386.Google Scholar
Muir-Wood, H. M.
1955. A history of the classification of the phylum Brachiopoda. British Museum (Natural History), London.Google Scholar
Noguchi, Y., Endo, K., Tajima, F., and others. 2000. The mitochondrial genome of the brachiopod Laqueus rubella
. Genetics, 155:245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, R.
1858. Mollusca, Class II, Brachiopoda. Encyclopaedia Britannica, (eighth edition), 15:319–403.Google Scholar
Pennington, J. T., Tamburri, M. N., and Barry, J. P.
1999. Development, temperature tolerance, and settlement preference of embryos and larvae of the articulate brachiopod Laqueus californianus
. Biological Bulletin, 196(3):245–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pleijel, F.
1999. Phylogenetic taxonomy, a farewell to species, and a revision of Heteropodarke (Hesionidae, Polychaeta, Annelida). Systematic Biology, 48:755–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poe, S.
1996. Sensitivity of phylogeny estimation to taxon sampling. Systematic Biology, 47:18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popov, L. E.
1992. The Cambrian radiation of brachiopods, p. 399–423. In
Lipps, J. H. and Signor, P. W. (eds.), Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popov, L. E., and Tikhonov, Y. A.
1990. Early Cambrian brachiopods from South Kirghizia. Paleontological Zhurnal, 1990:33–45.Google Scholar
Popov, L. E., Holmer, L. E., and Bassett, M. G.
1996. Radiation of the earliest calcareous brachiopods, p. 209–214. In
Copper, P. and Jin, J. (eds.), Brachiopods. Proceedings of the Third International Brachiopod Congress, 1995, A. A. Balkema, Netherlands.Google Scholar
L Popov, L. E., Bassett, M. G., Holmer, L. E., and Laurie, J.
1993. Phylogenetic analysis of higher taxa of Brachiopoda. Lethaia, 26:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rannala, B., Huelsenbeck, J. P., Yang, Z. H., and others. 1998. Taxon sampling and the accuracy of large phylogenies. Systematic Biology, 47:702–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosen, B. R.
1992. Empiricism and the biogeographic black-box—concepts and methods in marine paleobiogeography. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 92:171–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowell, A. J.
1981a. The Cambrian radiation: monophyletic or polyphyletic origins?
In
Taylor, M. E. (ed.), Short papers for the Second International Symposium on the Cambrian System. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report, 81-743:184–187Google Scholar
Rowell, A. J.
1981b. The origin of the brachiopods, p. 97–109. In
Broadhead, T. W. (ed.), Lophophorates, Notes for a Short Course. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Rowell, A. J.
1982. The monophyletic origin of the Brachiopoda. Lethaia, 15:299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runnegar, B.
1992. Evolution of the earliest animals, p. 65–93. In
Schopf, J. W. (ed.), Major Events in the History of Life. Jones and Bartlett, Boston.Google Scholar
Saito, M., Kojima, S., and Endo, K.
2000. Mitochondrial COI sequences of brachiopods: genetic code shared with protostomes and limits of utility for phylogenetic reconstruction. Molecules and Phylogenetic Evolution, 15(3):331–344Google Scholar
Sanderson, M. J., Purvis, A., and Henze, C.
1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13:105–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarycheva, T. G.
1960. Tip Brakhiopody (Phylon Brachiopoda), p. 113–343. In
Sarycheva, T. G. (ed.), Mshanki, Brakhiopody (Bryozoa, Brachiopoda), Iv. Orlov, A. (ed.), Osnovy Paleontologii (Fundamentals of Paleontology), volume 7. Akademia Nauk SSR, Moscow.Google Scholar
Schram, F. R.
1991. Cladistic analysis of metazoan phyla and the placement of fossil Problematica, p. 35–46. In
Simonetta, A. M. and Conway Morris, S. (eds.), The Early Evolution of Metazoa and the Significance of Problematic Taxa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Schuchert, C.
1893. A classification of the Brachiopoda. American Geologist, 11:141–167.Google Scholar
Schuchert, C.
1896. Class 2. Brachiopoda. In
Von Zittel, K. A., edited by Eastman, C. R.
Textbook of Paleontology, 1:291–343.Google Scholar
Schuchert, C., and Le Vene, C. M.
1929. Brachiopoda (Generum et Genotyporum Index et Bibliographia). Fossilium Catalogus, 1, Animalia, 42:1–140.Google Scholar
Shen, S. Z., Archbold, N. W., Shi, G. R., and others. 2000. Permian brachiopods from the Selong Xizan section, Xizang (Tibet), China—Pt. 1. Stratigraphy, Strophomenida, Productida, and Rhynchonellida. Geobios-Lyon, 33:725–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Signor, P. W., and Brett, C. E.
1984. The mid-Paleozoic precursor to the Mesozoic marine revolution. Paleobiology, 10:229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B.
2000. Stratigraphy in phylogeny reconstruction. Journal of Paleontology, 74:763–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E.
1983. Parsimony in systematics: philosophical issues. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 14:335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E.
1988. Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Soltis, D. E., Soltis, P. S., Chase, M. W., and others. 2000. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from 18S rDNA, rbcL, and atpB sequences. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 133:381–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sone, M., Leman, M. S., and Shi, G. R.
2001. Middle Permian brachiopods from Peninsular Malaysia—faunal affinities between Malaysia and west Cambodia. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 19:177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stechmann, A., and Schlegel, M.
1999. Analysis of the complete mitochondrial DNA sequence of the brachiopod Terebratulina retusa places Brachiopoda within the protostomes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 266(1433):2043–2052Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L.
1998. PAUP∗. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (∗and other methods), Version 4. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L., Waddell, P. J., Huelsenbeck, J. P., Foster, P. G., Lewis, P. O., and Rogers, J. S.
2001. Bias in phylogenetic estimation and its relevance to the choice between parsimony and likelihood methods. Systematic Biology, 50(4):525–539Google Scholar
Thomson, J. A.
1927. Brachiopod morphology and genera (Recent and Tertiary). N. Z. Board Science Art. Man. 7:1–338.Google Scholar
Ulrich, E. O., and Cooper, G. A.
1938. Ozarkian and Canadian Brachiopoda. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 13:1–323.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W.
1975. Adaptive strategies and the origin of grades and ground-plans. American Zoologist, 15:391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, J. W.
1992. The macroevolution of phyla, p. 525–553. In
Lipps, J. H. and Signor, P. W. (eds.), Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinn, O., and Rubel, M.
2000. The spondylium and related structures in the clitambonitidine brachiopods. Journal of Paleontology, 74:439–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waagen, W.
1882–1885. Salt Range Fossils. Pt. 4 (2). Productus Limestone fossils, Brachiopoda. Paleontologica Indica, 13(1):329–770Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J.
1995. Stratigraphic tests of cladistic hypotheses. Paleobiology, 21:153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J.
1998. A likelihood approach for estimating phylogenetic relationships among fossil taxa. Paleobiology, 24:430–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J.
1999. The utility of fossil data in phyloegnetic analyses: a likelihood example using Ordovician-Silurian species of the Lophospiridae (Gastropoda: Murchisoniina). American Malacological Bulletin, 15:1–31.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J.
2000a. Exhaustion of morphological character states among fossil taxa. Evolution, 54:365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J.
2000b. Phylogenetic analyses and the fossil record: tests and inferences, hypotheses and models. Paleobiology, 26(suppl.):341–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walcott, C. D.
1912. Cambrian Brachiopoda. U.S.
Geological Survey Monograph, 51:1–872.Google Scholar
Williams, A.
1955. Shell-structure of the brachiopod Lacazella mediterraneum (Risso). Nature, London, 175:1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A.
1956. The calcareous shell of the Brachiopoda and its importance to their classification. Biological Reviews, 31:243–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A.
1966. Growth and structure of the shell of living articulate brachiopods. Nature, London, 211:1146–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A.
1968a. Evolution of the shell structure of the articulate brachiopods. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 2:1–55.Google Scholar
Williams, A.
1968b. A history of skeletal secretion among articulate brachiopods. Lethaia, 1:268–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A.
1973. The secretion and structural evolution of the shell of thecideidine brachiopods. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 264B.439–477.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Rowell, A. J.
1965a. Evolution and phylogeny, p. H164–H199. In
Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Rowell, A. J.
1965b. Classification, p. H214–H237. In
Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Wright, A. J.
1970. Shell structure of the Craniacea and other calcareous inarticulate brachiopods. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 7:1–51.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Carlson, S. J., and Brunton, C. H. C.
2000. Brachiopod classification, p. 1–29. In
Kaesler, R. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Pt. H, revised, Brachiopoda, Volume 2, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, Colorado and Kansas.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Carlson, S. J., Brunton, C. H. C., Holmer, L. E., and Popov, L.
1996. A supra-ordinal classification of the Brachiopoda. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B (1996), 351:1171–1193.Google Scholar
Wright, A. D.
1979. Brachiopod radiation, p. 235–252. In
House, M. (ed.), The Origin of Major Invertebrate Groups, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar