Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:59:02.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Arthropods: Dampening the Cambrian Explosion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Derek E.G. Briggs
Derek E.G. Briggs*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Bristol, Queen's Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are three major groups of living arthropods: Crustacea, Chelicerata, and Uniramia. To these may be added a fourth, the extinct trilobites. Determining the relationships of these higher taxa is difficult. A variety of approaches has led to different conclusions. At one extreme is the suggestion that the interrelationships of the major arthropod groups cannot be resolved, that they are quite distinct and are more appropriately treated as separate phyla (Manton, 1977; Schram, 1978). At the other is the view that while some basic arthropod characters — the hard exoskeleton, jointed appendages etc. — might have been acquired convergently, a more parsimonious approach is to treat them as monophyletic (Patterson, 1978).

Type
Research Article
Information
Short Courses in Paleontology , Volume 3: Arthropod Paleobiology , 1990 , pp. 24 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 Paleontological Society 

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

Bergström, J. 1981. Morphology and systematics of early Arthropods. Abhandlungen des naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg, 23:7–42.Google Scholar
Bergström, J., and Brassel, G. 1984. Legs in the trilobite Rhenops from the Lower Devonian Hunsrück Slate. Lethaia, 17:67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boxshall, G.A., and Huys, R. 1989. New tantulocarid, Stygotantulus stocki, parasitic on harpacticoid copepods, with an analysis of the phylogenetic relationships within the Maxillopoda. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 9:126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, D.E.G. 1977. Bivalved arthropods from the Cambrian Burgess Shale of British Columbia. Palaeontology, 20:595–621.Google Scholar
Briggs, D.E.G. 1978. The morphology, mode of life, and affinities of Canadaspis perfecta (Crustacea: Phyllocarida), Middle Cambrian, Burgess Shale, British Columbia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B281:439–487.Google Scholar
Briggs, D.E.G. 1981. The arthropod Odaraia alata Walcott, Middle Cambrian, Burgess Shale, British Columbia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B291:541–584.Google Scholar
Briggs, D.E.G. 1983. Affinities and early evolution of the Crustacea: the evidence of the Cambrian fossils, p. 1–22. In Schram, F.R. (ed.), Crustacean Phylogeny. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Briggs, D.E.G., and Collins, D. 1988. A Middle Cambrian chelicerate from Mount Stephen, British Columbia. Palaeontology, 31, 779–798.Google Scholar
Briggs, D.E.G., and Fortey, R.A. 1989. The early radiation and relationships of the major arthropod groups. Science, 246:241–243.Google Scholar
Briggs, D.E.G., and Fortey, R.A. in press. The early Cambrian radiation of arthropods. In Lipps, J.W. and Signor, P.W. (eds.), Origins and early evolutionary history of the Metazoa. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Briggs, D.E.G., and Whittington, H.B. 1981. Relationships of arthropods from the Burgess Shale and other Cambrian sequences. Proceedings of the second international symposium on the Cambrian system. United States Geological Survey Open-file report, 81-743:38–41.Google Scholar
Bruton, D.L. 1981. The arthropod Sidneyia inexpectans, Middle Cambrian, Burgess Shale, British Columbia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B295:619–656.Google Scholar
Cisne, J.L. 1974. Trilobites and the origin of arthropods. Science, 186:13–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cisne, J.L. 1975. Anatomy of Triarthrus and the relationships of the Trilobita. Fossils and Strata, 4:45–63.Google Scholar
Cisne, J.L. 1982. Origin of the Crustacea, p. 65–92. In Bliss, D.E. (ed.), The Biology of Crustacea, Volume 1. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Collins, D., Briggs, D.E.G., and Morris, S. Conway 1983. New Burgess Shale fossil sites reveal middle Cambrian faunal complex. Science 222:163–167.Google Scholar
Morris, S. Conway 1989. Burgess Shale faunas and the Cambrian explosion. Science, 246:339–346.Google Scholar
Morris, S. Conway, Peel, J.S., Higgins, A.K., Soper, N.J., and Davis, N.C. 1987. A Burgess Shale-like fauna from the Lower Cambrian of North Greenland. Nature, 326:181–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, E. 1983. Phylogenetic systematics and the Crustacea Malacostraca — a problem of prerequisites. Verhandlungen des naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg, 26:355–371.Google Scholar
Dahl, E. 1984. The subclass Phyllocarida (Crustacea) and the status of some early fossils; a neontologist's view. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk naturhistoriisk Forening, 145:61–76.Google Scholar
Fortey, R.A. and Whittington, H.B. 1989. The Trilobita as a natural group. Historical Biology, 2:125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S.J. 1989. Wonderful life. The Burgess Shale and the nature of history. W.W. Norton, New York, 347 p.Google Scholar
Hessler, R.R. and Newman, W.A. 1975. A trilobitomorph origin for the Crustacea. Fossils and Strata, 4:437–459.Google Scholar
Manton, S.M. 1977. The Arthropoda, habits, functional morphology and evolution. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 527 p.Google Scholar
Manton, S.M., and Anderson, D.T. 1979. Polyphyly and the evolution of arthropods, p. 269–321. In House, M.R. (ed.), The origin of major invertebrate groups. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Mclaughlin, P. 1982. Comparative morphology of crustacean appendages, p. 197–256. In Bliss, D.E. (ed.), The Biology of Crustacea, Volume 2. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mcmenamin, M.A.S., and Mcmenamin, D.L.S. 1990. The emergence of animals. The Cambrian breakthrough. Columbia University Press, New York, 217 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikulic, D.G., Briggs, D.E.G., and Kluessendorf, J. 1985a. A Silurian soft-bodied biota. Science, 228:715–717.Google Scholar
Mikulic, D.G., Briggs, D.E.G., and Kluessendorf, J. 1985b. A new exceptionally preserved biota from the Lower Silurian of Wisconsin, U.S.A. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B311, 75–85.Google Scholar
Müller, K.J. 1979. Phosphatocopine ostracods with preserved appendages from the Upper Cambrian of Sweden. Lethaia, 12:1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, K.J., and Walossek, D. 1985. Skaracarida, a new order of Crustacea from the Upper Cambrian of Västergötland, Sweden. Fossils and Strata, 17:1–65.Google Scholar
Müller, K.J., and Walossek, D. 1986. Martinssonia elongata gen. et sp. n., a crustaceanlike euarthropod from the Upper Cambrian “Orsten” of Sweden. Zoologica Scripta 15:73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, K.J., and Walossek, D. 1987. Morphology, ontogeny and life habit of Agnostus pisiformis from the Upper Cambrian of Sweden. Fossils and Strata, 19:1–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, K.J., and Walossek, D. 1988. External morphology and larval development of the Upper Cambrian maxillopod Bredocaris admirabilis . Fossils and Strata, 23:1–70.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1978. Arthropods and ancestors. Antenna, 2:99–103.Google Scholar
Robison, R.A. 1985. Affinities of Aysheaia (Onychophora) with description of a new Cambrian species. Journal of Paleontology, 59:226–235.Google Scholar
Robison, R.A. 1990. Earliest-known uniramous arthropod. Nature 343:163–164.Google Scholar
Schram, F.R. 1978. Arthropods: a convergent phenomenon. Fieldiana, Geology, 39:61–108.Google Scholar
Smith, A.B. 1988. Patterns of diversification and extinction in Early Palaeozoic echinoderms. Palaeontology, 31:799–828.Google Scholar
Størmer, L. 1944. On the relationships and phylogeny of fossil and Recent Arachnomorpha. Skrifter utgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. 1. Mat.-Naturv. Klasse, 5:1–158.Google Scholar
Stürmer, W., and Bergström, J. 1973. New discoveries on trilobites by X-rays. Paläontologisches Zeitschrift, 47:104–141.Google Scholar
Whittington, H.B. 1975. Trilobites with appendages from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale, British Columbia. Fossils and Strata, 4:97–136.Google Scholar
Whittington, H.B. 1977. The Middle Cambrian trilobite Naraoia, Burgess Shale, British Columbia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B280:409–443.Google Scholar
Whittington, H.B. 1978. The lobopod animal Aysheaia pedunculata Walcott, Middle Cambrian, Burgess Shale, British Columbia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B284:165–197.Google Scholar
Whittington, H.B. 1979. Early arthropods, their appendages and relationships, p. 253–268. In House, M.R. (ed.), The origin of major invertebrate groups. Systematics Association Special Volume 12. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Whittington, H.B. 1985. Tegopelte gigas, a second soft-bodied trilobite from the Burgess Shale, Middle Cambrian, British Columbia. Journal of Paleontology, 59:1251–1274.Google Scholar
Whittington, H.B., and Almond, J.E. 1987. Appendages and habits of the Upper Ordovician trilobite Triarthrus eatoni. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B317:1–46.Google Scholar
Whittington, H.B., and Briggs, D.E.G. 1985. The largest Cambrian animal, Anomalocaris, Burgess Shale, British Columbia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B309:569–609.Google Scholar
Wen-Tang, Zhang and Xian-Guang, Hou. 1985. Preliminary notes on the occurrence of the unusual trilobite Naraoia in Asia. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica 24:591–595.Google Scholar