Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:57:03.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Malformed individuals of the trilobite Estaingia bilobata from the Cambrian Emu Bay Shale and their palaeobiological implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2023

Russell DC Bicknell*
Affiliation:
Palaeoscience Research Centre, School of Environmental & Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
James D Holmes
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, Palaeobiology, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, Uppsala 752 36, Sweden
Diego C García-Bellido
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia
John R Paterson
Affiliation:
Palaeoscience Research Centre, School of Environmental & Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Russell DC Bicknell, Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Malformed trilobite specimens present important insight into understanding how this extinct arthropod group recovered from developmental or moulting malfunctions, pathologies, and injuries. Previously documented examples of malformed trilobite specimens are often considered in isolation, with few studies reporting on multiple malformations in the same species. Here we report malformed specimens of the ellipsocephaloid trilobite Estaingia bilobata from the Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte (Cambrian Series 2, Stage 4) on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Ten malformed specimens exhibiting injuries, pathologies, and a range of teratologies are documented. Furthermore, five examples of mangled exoskeletons are presented, indicative of predation on E. bilobata. Considering the position of malformed and normal specimens of E. bilobata in bivariate space, we demonstrate that the majority of malformed specimens cluster among the larger individuals. Such specimens may exemplify larger forms successfully escaping predation attempts, but could equally represent individuals exhibiting old injuries that were made during earlier (smaller) growth stages that have healed through subsequent moulting events. The available evidence from the Emu Bay Shale suggests that this small, extremely abundant trilobite likely played an important role in the structure of the local ecosystem, occupying a low trophic level and being preyed upon by multiple durophagous arthropods. Furthermore, the scarcity of malformed E. bilobata specimens demonstrates how rarely injuries, developmental malfunctions, and pathological infestations occurred within the species.

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

1. Introduction

Malformed fossils present insight into how extinct forms responded to developmental, parasitic, and injury-related complications (Owen, Reference Owen1985; Babcock, Reference Babcock1993; Klompmaker et al. Reference Klompmaker, Kelley, Chattopadhyay, Clements, Huntley and Kowalewski2019; De Baets et al. Reference De Baets, Budil, Fatka, Geyer, De Baets and Huntley2022). Such specimens have been particularly useful for understanding facets of extinct arthropod groups (Babcock, Reference Babcock, Mikulic, Landing and Kluessendorf2003), including chelicerates, crustaceans, and trilobites (Owen, Reference Owen1985; Klompmaker et al. Reference Klompmaker, Karasawa, Portell, Fraaije and Ando2013; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Pates and Botton2018 c, Reference Bicknell, Pates, Kaiser, Zakrzewski, Botton, Tanacredi, Botton, Shin, Iwasaki, Cheung, Kwan and Mattei2022 b; Mitov et al. Reference Mitov, Dunlop and Bartel2021; De Baets et al. Reference De Baets, Budil, Fatka, Geyer, De Baets and Huntley2022). The most commonly documented malformed arthropod fossils are trilobites – a record that reflects their biomineralized exoskeleton (Babcock, Reference Babcock, Mikulic, Landing and Kluessendorf2003, Reference Babcock, Kelley, Kowalewski and Hansen2007; Fatka et al. Reference Fatka, Budil and Grigar2015; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Smith, Howells and Foster2022 d). This exoskeleton increases the preservational potential of individuals, and, by extension, improves the possibility of identifying malformed specimens.

Trilobites with malformations are often documented as stand-alone records, with examples ranging from the Cambrian through to the Carboniferous (Owen, Reference Owen1985; Babcock, Reference Babcock, Kelley, Kowalewski and Hansen2007; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a). As such, few publications have presented a thorough record of malformations from the same deposit, especially considering the ratio of malformed individuals in the context of non-malformed specimens of the same species. However, over the last five years, there has been a transition to presenting detailed records of malformed specimens from the same deposit and contextualizing these specimens within a larger population (see Pates et al. Reference Pates, Bicknell, Daley and Zamora2017; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Paterson and Hopkins2019, Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a; Pates & Bicknell, Reference Pates and Bicknell2019; Bicknell & Smith, Reference Bicknell and Smith2022). To extend this line of enquiry, we considered Estaingia bilobata Pocock, Reference Pocock1964 from the Emu Bay Shale (Cambrian Series 2, Stage 4) of South Australia. This species is exceptionally abundant within the Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte, with the vast majority of specimens preserved as articulated exoskeletons (Paterson et al. Reference Paterson, García-Bellido, Jago, Gehling, Lee and Edgecombe2016; Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, Paterson and García-Bellido2021 a, b; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a). The sheer abundance of specimens increases the likelihood of identifying malformed trilobites. Furthermore, injuries and pathologies are already known in other trilobites from the Emu Bay Shale and adjacent strata (Pocock, Reference Pocock1974; Conway Morris & Jenkins, Reference Conway Morris and Jenkins1985; Nedin, Reference Nedin1999; Paterson & Edgecombe, Reference Paterson and Edgecombe2006; Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, Paterson and García-Bellido2020; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a). Here we document specimens of E. bilobata that exhibit injuries, pathologies, and teratologies, as well as evidence of possible durophagy (Figs 15). Furthermore, given the detailed information available on E. bilobata ontogeny (Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, Paterson and García-Bellido2021 a, b), we compare these specimens to a population of non-malformed individuals to illustrate at which size class malformed specimens occur, presenting unique insights into the palaeoecology of this abundant Emu Bay Shale trilobite.

Fig. 1. Estaingia bilobata with L-, U- and W-shaped injuries. (a, b) SAMA P46113. U-shaped injury to right side of thorax. (a) Complete specimen. (b) Close-up of injury (white arrow). (c, d) SAMA P45360. L-shaped injury to right side of thorax. (c) Complete specimen. (d) L-shaped injury showing recovering pleural spines (white arrows). (e, f) SAMA P52886. W-shaped injury to left side of thorax. (e) Complete specimen. (f) Close-up of injury (white arrow).

Fig. 2. Estaingia bilobata with cephalic and trunk injuries. (a, b) SAMA P46113. U-shaped injury to left side of pygidium. (a) Complete specimen. (b) Close-up of injury showing cicatrization (white arrow). (c, d) SAMA P52817. Stunted and rounded left genal spine. (c) Complete specimen. (d) Close-up of injury (white arrow). (e, f) SAMA P52892. Malformed and fused posterior thorax. (e) Complete specimen. (f) Close-up of injury.

Fig. 3. Estaingia bilobata with two pathologies. (a, b) SAMA P59491. (a) Complete specimen. (b) Close-up of region with pathological neoplasms (white arrows).

Fig. 4. Estaingia bilobata with teratologies. (a, b) SAMA P54957. Fusion of axial rings (T5 and T6) and pleurae, some of which bifurcate distally. (a) Complete specimen. (b) Close-up of pleural bifurcations (white arrows). (c, d) SAMA P59487. Partial fusion of distal pleural sections. (c) Complete specimen. (d) Close-up of teratology (white arrows). (e, f) SAMA P59490. Additional ‘half-segment’. (e) Complete specimen showing asymmetrical trunk. (f) Close-up of teratology (white arrow).

Fig. 5. Examples of mangled Estaingia bilobata exoskeletons. (a, b) SAMA P46939. Shredded soft-shelled individual. (a) Part. (b) Counterpart. (c) SAMA P54820. Individual with severely broken and partially missing trunk. (d) SAMA P47975. Partial soft-shelled exoskeleton with torn thorax. (e) SAMA P54276. Soft-shelled individual with broken and partially missing trunk. (f) SAMA P 52867. Severely crushed exoskeleton with folded cephalon.

2. Geological and palaeoenvironmental context

The Emu Bay Shale forms part of the Kangaroo Island Group in the Stansbury Basin, which crops out on the north coast of Kangaroo Island (South Australia), and is interpreted as a nearshore delta complex (Gehling et al. Reference Gehling, Jago, Paterson, García-Bellido and Edgecombe2011; Jago et al. Reference Jago, Bentley, Paterson, Holmes, Lin and Sun2021). The Emu Bay Shale is considered to be c. 512 Ma (Pararaia janeae Zone; Cambrian Series 2, Stage 4) in age (Bengtson et al. Reference Bengtson, Conway Morris, Cooper, Jell and Runnegar1990; Paterson & Jago, Reference Paterson and Jago2006; Paterson & Brock, Reference Paterson and Brock2007; Jago et al. Reference Jago, Gehling, Betts, Brock, Dalgarno, García-Bellido, Haslett, Jacquet, Kruse and Langsford2020), based primarily on the co-occurrence of the emuellid trilobite Balcoracania dailyi Pocock, Reference Pocock1970 and an associated radiometric date of 511.87 ± 0.14 Ma in the Billy Creek Formation of the Arrowie Basin (Paterson & Edgecombe, Reference Paterson and Edgecombe2006; Paterson et al. Reference Paterson, Jago, Brock and Gehling2007; Betts et al. Reference Betts, Paterson, Jacquet, Andrew, Hall, Jago, Jagodzinski, Preiss, Crowley, Brougham, Mathewson, García-Bellido, Topper, Skovsted and Brock2018).

In the Big Gully area of Kangaroo Island, the Emu Bay Shale is 78 m thick at the shoreline and c. 61 m thick near Buck and Daily quarries, where the material considered here was sourced (c. 400 m inland; see García-Bellido et al. Reference García-Bellido, Paterson, Edgecombe, Jago, Gehling and Lee2009 for a detailed locality map). Here, the formation commences with a thin (up to 2 m) interval of polymict conglomerate, the base of which is interpreted as a sequence boundary separating it from the underlying Marsden Sandstone. Above this, the conglomerate transitions sharply into a package of dark grey, laminated mudstone with siltstone and fine sandstone event beds that become thicker and more common towards the contact with the sandstones of the overlying Boxing Bay Formation (Gehling et al. Reference Gehling, Jago, Paterson, García-Bellido and Edgecombe2011). The mudstone interval of the lower Emu Bay Shale is interpreted as representing a relatively deep-water prodelta environment, and hosts the Konservat-Lagerstätte that contains a diverse biota (50+ species, mainly within the basal c. 15 m of the formation), with many taxa considered to have been transported from shallower settings upslope, or having settled out of the water column (Paterson et al. Reference Paterson, García-Bellido, Jago, Gehling, Lee and Edgecombe2016). Exceptions include certain trilobite species, particularly the extraordinarily abundant Estaingia bilobata (with up to 600 individuals per square metre; JRP, unpublished data), as well as the redlichioids Redlichia takooensis Lu, Reference Lu1950 and R. rex Holmes, Paterson & García-Bellido, 2019 (Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, Paterson and García-Bellido2020). Intact moult configurations of these species suggest that they lived in or close to the low-oxygen environment of the prodelta setting, although were likely subject to occasional ‘mass kill’ events resulting from fluctuations of the oxycline (Paterson et al. Reference Paterson, García-Bellido, Jago, Gehling, Lee and Edgecombe2016). The prevalence of dorsum-down trilobite specimens in the deposit (up to 90% for E. bilobata; Drage et al. Reference Drage, Holmes, García-Bellido and Daley2018) may indicate a physiological response to oxygen stress.

3. Methods

All Estaingia bilobata specimens housed in the South Australian Museum (Adelaide, South Australia) palaeontological collection (SAMA P) were examined for evidence of malformations. Identified specimens were photographed under normal (fibre optic) lighting conditions using a Canon EOS 5D digital camera with a Canon MP-E 65 mm 1–5× macro lens.

The linear measurement dataset published by Holmes et al. (Reference Holmes, Paterson and García-Bellido2021 a) was used to determine where malformed Estaingia bilobata specimens were located in bivariate space compared to non-malformed specimens. The cephalic and trunk (thorax + pygidium) lengths in the dataset were used (Fig. 6a). Where possible, measurements from malformed specimens were added (Supplemental Information 1). Not all specimens documented here could be included due to partial preservation. Data were natural-log (ln) normalized and plotted. Data points were coded for malformation presence or absence.

Fig. 6. Measurements of Estaingia bilobata and bivariate plot showing distributions of malformations. (a) Reconstruction of E. bilobata showing measurements used in (b). (b) Bivariate space of E. bilobata. Most malformed specimens cluster with the largest specimens. Data found in Supplemental Data 1. Data were natural log normalized for plotting. Abbreviations: cl: cephalic length; tr: trunk (thorax + pygidium) length.

4. Terminology

4.a. Cicatrization

Exoskeletal thickening in a region where damage has occurred. This indicates an individual was alive and subsequently healed from the incurred injury (Rudkin, Reference Rudkin1979, Reference Rudkin1985; Babcock & Robison, Reference Babcock and Robison1989; Babcock, Reference Babcock1993, Reference Babcock, Mikulic, Landing and Kluessendorf2003).

4.b. Injury

Exoskeletal breakage through accidental injury, attack or moulting complications (sensu Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a). Injuries are usually L-, U-, V-, or W-shaped indentations across the exoskeleton (Babcock, Reference Babcock1993; Bicknell & Pates, Reference Bicknell and Pates2019; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a). They can also be expressed as the reduction and rounding of exoskeletal sections, or as a ‘single segment injury’ (Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a, d). These features generally show cicatrization and/or segment repair and regeneration. Occasionally, injured exoskeletal areas recover abnormally, resulting in the fusion of exoskeletal sections and a lack of segment expression (Owen, Reference Owen1985; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a). Injuries do not extend across the entire specimen – such breaks likely reflect post-mortem, taphonomic processes (Leighton, Reference Leighton, Laflamme, Schiffbauer and Dornbos2011).

4.c. Malformation

Evidence for injuries, teratologies, or pathologies (Owen, Reference Owen1985).

4.d. Pathology

Malformed exoskeletal sections resulting from parasitic activity or infections. These structures are often expressed as circular to ovate swellings (Šnajdr, Reference Šnajdr1978; Owen, Reference Owen1985; De Baets et al. Reference De Baets, Budil, Fatka, Geyer, De Baets and Huntley2022).

4.e. Teratology

External expressions of developmental, embryological, or genetic malfunctions (Owen, Reference Owen1985). These morphologies include addition or removal of nodes, segments, and spines, as well as abnormally developed morphologies (Owen, Reference Owen1985; Bicknell & Smith, Reference Bicknell and Smith2021).

5. Results

Examination of Estaingia bilobata specimens uncovered several examples of injuries, pathologies, and teratologies. We also found evidence for possible durophagous predation or post-mortem scavenging in the form of mangled exoskeletons.

5.a. Injuries

Six injured Estaingia bilobata are identified. Most injuries are unilateral, show L-, U-, W-shaped morphologies (Figs. 1, 2; Table 1) and are located on the trunk, showing evidence for pleural spine regeneration and rounding (Fig. 1c, d) and cicatrization (Figs 1e, f, 2a, b). However, there is a single specimen with a highly deformed posterior trunk showing fused thoracic segments (Fig. 2e, f). There is only one specimen that displays a cephalic injury, represented by a broken genal spine that has partially regenerated (Fig. 2c, d).

Table 1. Summary of injured Estaingia bilobata

5.b. Pathologies

Only one specimen shows evidence for pathological growths on the pygidium in the form of two ovate neoplasms (Fig. 3). Pathological growth on the right side of the pygidium is twice the size of the left neoplasm.

5.c. Teratologies

Three examples of teratologies are observed. The first shows abnormally developed posterior segments on the right side of the thorax, including the apparent fusion of certain axial rings (e.g. T5 and T6) and pleurae, some of which bifurcate distally (Fig. 4a, b). The second specimen displays very minor, partial fusion of distal sections of two anterior pleurae on the left side of the thorax (Fig. 4c, d). The third specimen has an additional ‘half-segment’ immediately behind T3 on the right side of the thorax. This additional segment begins at the sagittal line and rapidly expands to form the right half of an axial ring and a normal pleura (Fig. 4e, f). This has resulted in a highly asymmetrical trunk morphology, with the additional ‘half-segment’ also causing the posteriorly adjacent segment to bend.

5.d. Mangled exoskeletons

Five specimens with substantial exoskeletal breakage or ripping are noted (Fig. 5). The fully biomineralized specimens show extensive breakage over major exoskeletal regions (Fig. 5c, f). Specimens preserved in very low relief – interpreted as newly moulted, soft-shelled individuals (Drage & Daley, Reference Drage and Daley2016) – appear shredded or torn (Fig. 5a, b, e) and, in one case, shows complete removal of the cephalon and posterior trunk regions (Fig. 5d).

5.e. Bivariate space

The distribution of malformed Estaingia bilobata in bivariate space illustrates a clear overall size pattern (Fig. 6). The majority of malformed individuals cluster among the largest holaspid stages (Fig. 6b). The exceptions are two smaller specimens that are separate from other malformed individuals. There is no marked distinction between where injured, pathological, and teratological specimens are located in shape space.

6. Discussion

The specimens of Estaingia bilobata documented here show evidence for the three major groups of trilobite malformations (Owen, Reference Owen1985). This is rare among Cambrian trilobites, as the vast majority of malformed specimens record injuries, with limited evidence for teratologies and pathologies (Bergström & Levi-Setti, Reference Bergström and Levi-Setti1978; Bicknell & Paterson, Reference Bicknell and Paterson2018; De Baets et al. Reference De Baets, Budil, Fatka, Geyer, De Baets and Huntley2022). As such, E. bilobata presents a unique opportunity to study the palaeobiological significance of malformation types in one trilobite species from a single deposit.

The majority of observed Estaingia bilobata injuries (Figs. 1, 2a, b, e, f) are comparable to other documented examples of injured Cambrian trilobites (Rudkin, Reference Rudkin1979; Babcock, Reference Babcock1993; Bicknell & Pates, Reference Bicknell and Pates2020; Zong, Reference Zong2021 a, b). Indeed, select E. bilobata injuries are very similar to those observed on the co-occurring Redlichia takooensis and R. rex that have been attributed to failed predation (Conway Morris & Jenkins, Reference Conway Morris and Jenkins1985; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a). It is highly likely that these injuries in E. bilobata also reflect failed predation. Evidence for cicatrization (Figs 1a, b, e, f, 2a, b) and regeneration (Fig. 1c, d) at injury sites indicates that these individuals survived and continued to moult after attacks. Other evidence for predation on, or post-mortem mastication of, E. bilobata is represented by the mangled exoskeletons (Fig. 5). Similar examples of R. takooensis have been interpreted as rare evidence of possible durophagy (e.g. Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a, fig. 1C–E). Such evidence of durophagy, combined with examples of failed predation, further bolsters the idea that E. bilobata was a key prey item within the Emu Bay Shale biota. This smaller trilobite species likely occupied a relatively low trophic level within the ecosystem (Jago et al. Reference Jago, García-Bellido and Gehling2016), especially given its extreme abundance (>80% of individuals across all known species), and yet injured specimens of E. bilobata are exceedingly rare. Further, most injured specimens cluster among the larger individuals in bivariate space. This may suggest that only larger individuals were capable of escaping and recovering from attacks, preserving records of failed predation. Alternatively, these specimens may preserve evidence of older injuries that recovered through subsequent moulting events. In either case, this pattern indicates a possible record of survivorship bias within the trilobite fossil record.

One injured specimen of Estaingia bilobata shows a substantially disrupted posterior thorax (Fig. 2e, f). This malformation is comparable to rare specimens of other Cambrian trilobite species with highly disrupted and wrinkled pleurae adjacent to the injury (Conway Morris & Jenkins, Reference Conway Morris and Jenkins1985; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a). This condition is more commonly observed in the trunk of younger iso- and macropygous trilobites (Ormiston et al. Reference Ormiston, Logan and Fulton1967; Šnajdr, Reference Šnajdr1981; Owen, Reference Owen1985; Rudkin, Reference Rudkin1985). Disruption of pleurae indicates that the individual may have been attacked during the soft-shelled stage (shortly after moulting), resulting in a highly deformed exoskeleton that became fixed in subsequent moults (Conway Morris & Jenkins, Reference Conway Morris and Jenkins1985; Rudkin, Reference Rudkin1985).

Trilobite genal spine malformations are particularly rare (Owen, Reference Owen1985). Most malformed genal spines are represented by disrupted borders (e.g. Chatterton, Reference Chatterton1971; Cowie & McNamara, Reference Cowie and McNamara1978; Owen, Reference Owen1985; Babcock, Reference Babcock1993; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Pates and Botton2018 c), abnormal cephalic fringes (Owen, Reference Owen1983), or bifurcating genal spines (Owen, Reference Owen1985). Complete removal (Kay, Reference Kay1937) and recovery (Sinclair, Reference Sinclair1947; Hessin, Reference Hessin1988; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Smith, Bruthansová and Holland2022 c) of genal spines is exceedingly rare, as reflected by the single Estaingia bilobata specimen documented here. The documentation of only one genal spine injury (Fig. 2c, d) is noteworthy. Given the constrained anatomical region, a predator would unlikely have limited an attack to the genal area. As such, we can exclude failed predation as the most plausible explanation. Instead, the injury could reflect a complication during moulting or mechanical (non-predatory) damage that resulted in spine breakage (Owen, Reference Owen1983).

Teratological trilobite specimens with an additional ‘half-segment’ are almost completely unknown. To our knowledge, the only other example of an additional ‘half-segment’ within the thoracic region is a malformed Emuella polymera Pocock, Reference Pocock1970 that has multiple ‘half-segments’ (Pocock, Reference Pocock1974; Owen, Reference Owen1985; Paterson & Edgecombe, Reference Paterson and Edgecombe2006). One further record of this ‘half-segment’ condition is known from a Toxochasmops McNamara, Reference McNamara1979 pygidium from the Upper Ordovician (Katian) of Norway (Nielsen & Nielsen, Reference Nielsen and Nielsen2017). These rare teratologies likely record damage to a generative zone and the resultant propagation of additional, unaligned segments (Pocock, Reference Pocock1974; Owen, Reference Owen1985). It is noteworthy that two of the three examples represent early Cambrian forms, one of which (E. polymera) belongs to the family Emuellidae, which is characterized by unusually large numbers of trunk segments (Paterson & Edgecombe, Reference Paterson and Edgecombe2006). Emuellids in particular may have been more prone to teratologies as they added new segments through euanamorphosis (Paterson & Edgecombe, Reference Paterson and Edgecombe2006). These trilobites certainly had unusual patterns of trunk segment development compared with other forms (Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, Paterson and García-Bellido2021 a). This may have increased the likelihood of developmental malformations, indicating possible evidence for increased developmental plasticity within Cambrian trilobites compared to younger forms (Webster, Reference Webster2007). However, the rarity of these exceptional specimens suggests that these malfunctions seldom occurred.

Fused exoskeletal sections are rarely observed in thoracic pleurae (see Öpik, Reference Öpik1975, pl. 17), but more commonly recognized in pygidial regions (Strusz, Reference Strusz1980; Owen, Reference Owen1985; Babcock, Reference Babcock1993; Nielsen & Nielsen, Reference Nielsen and Nielsen2017; Bicknell & Smith, Reference Bicknell and Smith2021). Such teratologies have been attributed to genetic malfunctions (Nielsen & Nielsen, Reference Nielsen and Nielsen2017) and/or moulting complications producing a malformation that propagated in subsequent moults (Bicknell & Smith, Reference Bicknell and Smith2021). As the teratological thoracic segments (Fig. 4c, d) lack any evidence of an injury, this rare malformation was likely caused by a developmental abnormality that impacted a limited exoskeletal region. This may record segments failing to separate or articulate correctly when they budded off from the pygidium.

The morphologies of exceptionally preserved appendages in two Emu Bay Shale arthropod species have been linked to durophagy, potentially on Estaingia bilobata. Firstly, the short, stout gnathobasic spines on the biramous appendages of the very large trilobite Redlichia rex (Fig. 7e, f) have been shown to be comparable with other known durophages, such as the Cambrian Burgess Shale arthropod Sidneyia inexpectans Walcott, Reference Walcott1911 and the extant horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus (Linnaeus, Reference Linnaeus1758) (Botton, Reference Botton1984; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Ledogar, Wroe, Gutzler, Watson and Paterson2018 a, b, Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Edgecombe, Losso, Ortega-Hernández, Wroe and Paterson2021, Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a; Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, Paterson and García-Bellido2020). This has permitted the linking of injuries identified on R. takooensis specimens with failed predation by the larger R. rex, and injuries to R. rex as possible instances of attempted cannibalism (Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a). Individuals of R. rex (and potentially R. takooensis, although morphological details of the appendages are unknown) may have also consumed E. bilobata, as supported by centimetre-scale coprolites containing E. bilobata remains (Daley et al. Reference Daley, Paterson, Edgecombe, García-Bellido and Jago2013, fig. 7E–H) that have been attributed to R. rex (Daley et al. Reference Daley, Paterson, Edgecombe, García-Bellido and Jago2013; Bicknell et al. Reference Bicknell, Holmes, Pates, García-Bellido and Paterson2022 a). The gnathobasic spines of the Emu Bay Shale chelicerate Wisangocaris barbarahardyae Jago et al., Reference Jago, García-Bellido and Gehling2016 (Fig. 7c, d) show similar morphologies to those of R. rex and other known durophages, and were likely also adapted for crushing biomineralized material (Jago et al. Reference Jago, García-Bellido and Gehling2016). This is supported by the presence of shelly cololites in certain specimens of W. barbarahardyae, some containing fragments of E. bilobata (Fig. 7a, b; Jago et al. Reference Jago, García-Bellido and Gehling2016, fig. 5c–g). Given the maximum reported size of W. barbarahardyae is c. 60 mm, this arthropod may have targeted and consumed E. bilobata meraspides. Juveniles of E. bilobata are abundant in the Lagerstätte interval and range from c. 1 to 5 mm in length (Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, Paterson and García-Bellido2021 a, b). This is consistent with the size of E. bilobata pleurae preserved within a W. barbarahardyae cololite (Fig. 7b). The size range and sheer abundance of E. bilobata within the Emu Bay Shale suggest that this small trilobite occupied an important position within the lower trophic levels of the local ecosystem, and was an important prey item for multiple species of predator.

Fig. 7. Examples of possible predators of Estaingia bilobata. (a–d) Wisangocaris barbarahardyae. (a, b) SAMA P55603a. Specimen showing shelly cololite containing E. bilobata fragments. (a) Near-complete specimen. (b) Close-up of cololite with sclerite fragments (white arrows). (c, d) SAMA P45629. Specimen showing series of gnathobases possibly used in durophagy of E. bilobata. (c) Near-complete specimen. (d) Close-up showing rows of gnathobasic spines. (e, f) SAMA P54942. Biramous appendage of Redlichia rex showing stout gnathobasic spines. (e) Complete specimen. (f) Close-up of stout gnathobasic spines.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756822001261

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by Australian Research Council grants (LP0774959, FT120100770 and DP200102005 to JRP and FT130101329 to DCGB), a National Geographic Society Research & Exploration grant (8991-11), a University of New England Postdoctoral Fellowship (to RDCB), a Karl Hirsch Memorial Grant (to RDCB), and a Royal Society of South Australia Research Grant (to RDCB). We thank Mary-Anne Binnie (SAMA) for access to, and help with collections. Finally, we thank Olev Vinn and an anonymous referee for their suggested changes to the manuscript.

References

Babcock, LE (1993) Trilobite malformations and the fossil record of behavioral asymmetry. Journal of Paleontology 67, 217–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babcock, LE (2003) Role of malformations in elucidating trilobite paleobiology: a historical synthesis. In Fabulous Fossils – 300 Years of Worldwide Research on Trilobites (eds Mikulic, DG, Landing, E and Kluessendorf, J), pp. 319. New York: The University of State of New York.Google Scholar
Babcock, LE (2007) Trilobites in Paleozoic predator-prey systems, and their role in reorganization of early Paleozoic ecosystems. In Predator-Prey Interactions in the Fossil Record (eds Kelley, P, Kowalewski, M and Hansen, TA), pp. 5592. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Babcock, LE and Robison, RA (1989) Preferences of Palaeozoic predators. Nature 337, 695–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtson, S, Conway Morris, S, Cooper, BJ, Jell, PA and Runnegar, BN (1990) Early Cambrian fossils from South Australia. Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists 9, 1364.Google Scholar
Bergström, J and Levi-Setti, R (1978) Phenotypic variation in the Middle Cambrian trilobite Paradoxides davidis Salter at Manuels, SE Newfoundland. Geologica et Palaeontologica 12, 140.Google Scholar
Betts, MJ, Paterson, JR, Jacquet, SM, Andrew, AS, Hall, PA, Jago, JB, Jagodzinski, EA, Preiss, WV, Crowley, JL, Brougham, T, Mathewson, CP, García-Bellido, DC, Topper, TP, Skovsted, CB and Brock, GA (2018) Early Cambrian chronostratigraphy and geochronology of South Australia. Earth-Science Reviews 185, 498543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicknell, RDC and Smith, PM (2022) Examining abnormal Silurian trilobites from the Llandovery of Australia. PeerJ 10, e14308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bicknell, RDC, Holmes, JD, Edgecombe, GD, Losso, SR, Ortega-Hernández, J, Wroe, S and Paterson, JR (2021) Biomechanical analyses of Cambrian euarthropod limbs reveal their effectiveness in mastication and durophagy. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 288, 20202075.Google ScholarPubMed
Bicknell, RDC, Holmes, JD, Pates, S, García-Bellido, DC and Paterson, JR (2022a) Cambrian carnage: trilobite predator-prey interactions in the Emu Bay Shale of South Australia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 591, 110877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicknell, RDC, Ledogar, JA, Wroe, S, Gutzler, BC, Watson, WH III and Paterson, JR (2018a) Computational biomechanical analyses demonstrate similar shell-crushing abilities in modern and ancient arthropods. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 285, 20181935.Google ScholarPubMed
Bicknell, RDC and Paterson, JR (2018) Reappraising the early evidence of durophagy and drilling predation in the fossil record: implications for escalation and the Cambrian Explosion. Biological Reviews 93, 754–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bicknell, RDC, Paterson, JR, Caron, J-B and Skovsted, CB (2018b) The gnathobasic spine microstructure of recent and Silurian chelicerates and the Cambrian artiopodan Sidneyia: Functional and evolutionary implications. Arthropod Structure & Development 47, 1224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bicknell, RDC, Paterson, JR and Hopkins, MJ (2019) A trilobite cluster from the Silurian Rochester Shale of New York: predation patterns and possible defensive behavior. American Museum Novitates 39, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicknell, RDC and Pates, S (2019) Abnormal extant xiphosurids in the Yale Peabody Museum Invertebrate Zoology collection. Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 60, 4153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicknell, RDC and Pates, S (2020) Exploring abnormal Cambrian-aged trilobites in the Smithsonian collection. PeerJ 8, e8453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bicknell, RDC, Pates, S and Botton, ML (2018c) Abnormal xiphosurids, with possible application to Cambrian trilobites. Palaeontologia Electronica 21, 117.Google Scholar
Bicknell, RDC, Pates, S, Kaiser, D, Zakrzewski, S and Botton, ML (2022b) Applying records of extant and extinct horseshoe crab abnormalities to xiphosurid conservation. In International Horseshoe Crab Conservation and Research Efforts: 2007–2020 – Conservation of Horseshoe Crabs Species Globally (eds Tanacredi, JT, Botton, ML, Shin, PKS, Iwasaki, Y, Cheung, SG, Kwan, KY and Mattei, JH), pp. 85104. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicknell, RDC and Smith, PM (2021) Teratological trilobites from the Silurian (Wenlock and Ludlow) of Australia. The Science of Nature 108, 25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bicknell, RDC, Smith, PM, Bruthansová, J and Holland, B (2022c) Malformed trilobites from the Ordovician and Devonian. PalZ 96, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicknell, RDC, Smith, PM, Howells, TF and Foster, JR (2022d) New records of injured Cambrian and Ordovician trilobites. Journal of Paleontology 96, 921–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botton, ML (1984) Diet and food preferences of the adult horseshoe crab Limulus polyphemus in Delaware Bay, New Jersey, USA. Marine Biology 81, 199207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterton, BDE (1971) Taxonomy and ontogeny of Siluro-Devonian trilobites from near Yass, New South Wales. Palaeontographica Abteilung A 137, 1108.Google Scholar
Conway Morris, S and Jenkins, RJF (1985) Healed injuries in early Cambrian trilobites from South Australia. Alcheringa 9, 167–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, J and McNamara, KJ (1978) Olenellus (Trilobita) from the Lower Cambrian strata of north-west Scotland. Palaeontology 21, 615–34.Google Scholar
Daley, AC, Paterson, JR, Edgecombe, GD, García-Bellido, DC and Jago, JB (2013) New anatomical information on Anomalocaris from the Cambrian Emu Bay Shale of South Australia and a reassessment of its inferred predatory habits. Palaeontology 56, 971–90.Google Scholar
De Baets, K, Budil, P, Fatka, O and Geyer, G (2022) Trilobites as hosts for parasites: from paleopathologies to etiologies. In The Evolution and Fossil Record of Parasitism: Coevolution and Paleoparasitological Techniques (eds De Baets, K and Huntley, JW), pp. 173201. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Drage, HB and Daley, AC (2016) Recognising moulting behaviour in trilobites by examining morphology, development and preservation: comment on Błażejowski et al. 2015. BioEssays 38, 981–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drage, HB, Holmes, JD, García-Bellido, DC and Daley, AC (2018) An exceptional record of Cambrian trilobite moulting behaviour preserved in the Emu Bay Shale, South Australia. Lethaia 51, 473–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fatka, O, Budil, P and Grigar, L (2015) A unique case of healed injury in a Cambrian trilobite. Annales de Paléontologie 101, 295–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Bellido, DC, Paterson, JR, Edgecombe, GD, Jago, JB, Gehling, JG and Lee, MSY (2009) The bivalved arthropods Isoxys and Tuzoia with soft-part preservation from the Lower Cambrian Emu Bay Shale Lagerstätte (Kangaroo Island, Australia). Palaeontology 52, 1221–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehling, JG, Jago, JB, Paterson, JR, García-Bellido, DC and Edgecombe, GD (2011) The geological context of the lower Cambrian (Series 2) Emu Bay Shale Lagerstätte and adjacent stratigraphic units, Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 58, 243–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hessin, WA (1988) Partial regeneration of a genal spine by the trilobite Ceraurus plattinensis . Lethaia 21, 285–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, JD, Paterson, JR and García-Bellido, DC (2020) The trilobite Redlichia from the lower Cambrian Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte of South Australia: systematics, ontogeny and soft-part anatomy. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 18, 295334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, JD, Paterson, JR and García-Bellido, DC (2021a) Complex axial growth patterns in an early Cambrian trilobite from South Australia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 288, 20212131.Google Scholar
Holmes, JD, Paterson, JR and García-Bellido, DC (2021b) The post-embryonic ontogeny of the early Cambrian trilobite Estaingia bilobata from South Australia: trunk development and phylogenetic implications. Papers in Palaeontology 7, 931–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jago, JB, Bentley, CJ, Paterson, JR, Holmes, JD, Lin, TR and Sun, XW (2021) The stratigraphic significance of early Cambrian (Series 2, Stage 4) trilobites from the Smith Bay Shale near Freestone Creek, Kangaroo Island. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 68, 204–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jago, JB, García-Bellido, DC and Gehling, JG (2016) An early Cambrian chelicerate from the Emu Bay Shale, South Australia. Palaeontology 59, 549–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jago, JB, Gehling, JG, Betts, MJ, Brock, GA, Dalgarno, CR, García-Bellido, DC, Haslett, PG, Jacquet, SM, Kruse, PD and Langsford, NR (2020) The Cambrian System in the Arrowie Basin, Flinders Ranges, South Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 67, 923–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, GM (1937) Stratigraphy of the Trenton group. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 48, 233302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klompmaker, AA, Karasawa, H, Portell, RW, Fraaije, RHB and Ando, Y (2013) An overview of predation evidence found on fossil decapod crustaceans with new examples of drill holes attributed to gastropods and octopods. Palaios 28, 599613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klompmaker, AA, Kelley, PH, Chattopadhyay, D, Clements, JC, Huntley, JW and Kowalewski, M (2019) Predation in the marine fossil record: studies, data, recognition, environmental factors, and behavior. Earth-Science Reviews 194, 472520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leighton, LR (2011) Analyzing predation from the dawn of the Phanerozoic. In Quantifying the Evolution of Early Life (eds Laflamme, M, Schiffbauer, JD and Dornbos, SQ), pp. 73109. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnaeus, C (1758) Systema naturæ per regna tria naturæ, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis, 10th edn. Holmiae: Laurentius Salvius.Google Scholar
Lu, Y (1950) On the genus Redlichia with description of its new species. Geological Review 15, 157–70 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
McNamara, KJ (1979) Trilobites from the Coniston Limestone Group (Ashgill Series) of the Lake District, England. Palaeontology 22, 5392.Google Scholar
Mitov, PG, Dunlop, JA and Bartel, C (2021) A case of pedipalpal regeneration in a fossil harvestman (Arachnida: Opiliones). Arachnologische Mitteilungen 61, 65–9.Google Scholar
Nedin, C (1999) Anomalocaris predation on nonmineralized and mineralized trilobites. Geology 27, 987–90.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, ML and Nielsen, AT (2017) Two abnormal pygidia of the trilobite Toxochasmops from the Upper Ordovician of the Oslo Region, Norway. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 65, 171–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öpik, AA (1975) Templetonian and Ordian xystridurid trilobites of Australia. Bulletin of the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology & Geophysics 121, 184.Google Scholar
Ormiston, AR, Logan, A and Fulton, RJ (1967) Lower and Middle Devonian trilobites of the Canadian Arctic islands. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Canada 153, 1148.Google Scholar
Owen, AW (1983) Abnormal cephalic fringes in the Trinucleidae and Harpetidae (Trilobita). Special Papers in Paleontology 30, 241–7.Google Scholar
Owen, AW (1985) Trilobite abnormalities. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences 76, 255–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, JR and Brock, GA (2007) Early Cambrian trilobites from Angorichina, Flinders Ranges, South Australia, with a new assemblage from the Pararaia bunyerooensis Zone. Journal of Paleontology 81, 116–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, JR and Edgecombe, GD (2006) The Early Cambrian trilobite family Emuellidae Pocock, 1970: systematic position and revision of Australian species. Journal of Paleontology 80, 496513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, JR, García-Bellido, DC, Jago, JB, Gehling, JG, Lee, MSY and Edgecombe, GD (2016) The Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte: a view of Cambrian life from East Gondwana. Journal of the Geological Society 173, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, JR and Jago, JB (2006) New trilobites from the Lower Cambrian Emu Bay Shale Lagerstätte at Big Gully, Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists 32, 4357.Google Scholar
Paterson, JR, Jago, JB, Brock, GA and Gehling, JG (2007) Taphonomy and palaeoecology of the emuellid trilobite Balcoracania dailyi (early Cambrian, South Australia). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 249, 302–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pates, S and Bicknell, RDC (2019) Elongated thoracic spines as potential predatory deterrents in olenelline trilobites from the lower Cambrian of Nevada. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 516, 295306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pates, S, Bicknell, RDC, Daley, AC and Zamora, S (2017) Quantitative analysis of repaired and unrepaired damage to trilobites from the Cambrian (Stage 4, Drumian) Iberian Chains, NE Spain. Palaios 32, 750–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocock, KJ (1964) Estaingia, a new trilobite genus from the Lower Cambrian of South Australia. Palaeontology 7, 458–71.Google Scholar
Pocock, KJ (1970) The Emuellidae, a new family of trilobites from the Lower Cambrian of South Australia. Palaeontology 13, 522–62.Google Scholar
Pocock, KJ (1974) A unique case of teratology in trilobite segmentation. Lethaia 7, 6366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudkin, DM (1979) Healed injuries in Ogygopsis klotzi (Trilobita) from the Middle Cambrian of British Columbia. Royal Ontario Museum, Life Sciences Occasional Paper 32, 18.Google Scholar
Rudkin, DM (1985) Exoskeletal abnormalities in four trilobites. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 22, 479–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, GW (1947) Two examples of injury in Ordovician trilobites. American Journal of Science 245, 250–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šnajdr, M (1978) Pathological neoplasms in the fringe of Bohemoharpes (Trilobita). Věstník Ústředního Ústavu Geologického 53, 4950.Google Scholar
Šnajdr, M (1981) Bohemian Proetidae with malformed exoskeletons (Trilobita). Sborník Geologických Věd Paleontologie 24, 3761.Google Scholar
Strusz, DL (1980) The Encrinuridae and related trilobite families, with a description of Silurian species from southeastern Australia. Palaeontographica Abteilung A 168, 168.Google Scholar
Walcott, CD (1911) Cambrian geology and paleontology, II. Middle Cambrian Merostomata. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 57, 1740.Google Scholar
Webster, M (2007) A Cambrian peak in morphological variation within trilobite species. Science 317, 499502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zong, R-W (2021a) Abnormalities in early Paleozoic trilobites from central and eastern China. Palaeoworld 30, 430–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zong, R-W (2021b) Injuries and molting interference in a trilobite from the Cambrian (Furongian) of South China. PeerJ 9, e11201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Estaingia bilobata with L-, U- and W-shaped injuries. (a, b) SAMA P46113. U-shaped injury to right side of thorax. (a) Complete specimen. (b) Close-up of injury (white arrow). (c, d) SAMA P45360. L-shaped injury to right side of thorax. (c) Complete specimen. (d) L-shaped injury showing recovering pleural spines (white arrows). (e, f) SAMA P52886. W-shaped injury to left side of thorax. (e) Complete specimen. (f) Close-up of injury (white arrow).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Estaingia bilobata with cephalic and trunk injuries. (a, b) SAMA P46113. U-shaped injury to left side of pygidium. (a) Complete specimen. (b) Close-up of injury showing cicatrization (white arrow). (c, d) SAMA P52817. Stunted and rounded left genal spine. (c) Complete specimen. (d) Close-up of injury (white arrow). (e, f) SAMA P52892. Malformed and fused posterior thorax. (e) Complete specimen. (f) Close-up of injury.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Estaingia bilobata with two pathologies. (a, b) SAMA P59491. (a) Complete specimen. (b) Close-up of region with pathological neoplasms (white arrows).

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Estaingia bilobata with teratologies. (a, b) SAMA P54957. Fusion of axial rings (T5 and T6) and pleurae, some of which bifurcate distally. (a) Complete specimen. (b) Close-up of pleural bifurcations (white arrows). (c, d) SAMA P59487. Partial fusion of distal pleural sections. (c) Complete specimen. (d) Close-up of teratology (white arrows). (e, f) SAMA P59490. Additional ‘half-segment’. (e) Complete specimen showing asymmetrical trunk. (f) Close-up of teratology (white arrow).

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Examples of mangled Estaingia bilobata exoskeletons. (a, b) SAMA P46939. Shredded soft-shelled individual. (a) Part. (b) Counterpart. (c) SAMA P54820. Individual with severely broken and partially missing trunk. (d) SAMA P47975. Partial soft-shelled exoskeleton with torn thorax. (e) SAMA P54276. Soft-shelled individual with broken and partially missing trunk. (f) SAMA P 52867. Severely crushed exoskeleton with folded cephalon.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Measurements of Estaingia bilobata and bivariate plot showing distributions of malformations. (a) Reconstruction of E. bilobata showing measurements used in (b). (b) Bivariate space of E. bilobata. Most malformed specimens cluster with the largest specimens. Data found in Supplemental Data 1. Data were natural log normalized for plotting. Abbreviations: cl: cephalic length; tr: trunk (thorax + pygidium) length.

Figure 6

Table 1. Summary of injured Estaingia bilobata

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Examples of possible predators of Estaingia bilobata. (a–d) Wisangocaris barbarahardyae. (a, b) SAMA P55603a. Specimen showing shelly cololite containing E. bilobata fragments. (a) Near-complete specimen. (b) Close-up of cololite with sclerite fragments (white arrows). (c, d) SAMA P45629. Specimen showing series of gnathobases possibly used in durophagy of E. bilobata. (c) Near-complete specimen. (d) Close-up showing rows of gnathobasic spines. (e, f) SAMA P54942. Biramous appendage of Redlichia rex showing stout gnathobasic spines. (e) Complete specimen. (f) Close-up of stout gnathobasic spines.

Supplementary material: File

Bicknell et al. supplementary material

Bicknell et al. supplementary material

Download Bicknell et al. supplementary material(File)
File 12.7 KB