Re-evaluating the palaeobiology and affinities of the Ctenocystoidea (Echinodermata)

Journal of Systematic Palaeontology

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 413-426

  Rahman, Imran A ^a   Clausen, Sébastien ^b  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIV LILLE   (France)

Author keywords

Cambrian; Carpoids; Ctenocystis; Echinoderms; Phylogeny; Spence Shale

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; BIOSTRATIGRAPHY; CAMBRIAN; ECHINODERM; FOSSIL RECORD; MORPHOLOGY; PALEOBIOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; RECONSTRUCTION; SHALE; TAPHONOMY; X-RAY SPECTROSCOPY;

UNITED STATES;

BLASTOZOA; CTENOCYSTOIDEA; DEUTEROSTOMIA; ECHINODERMATA; HEMICHORDATA;

EID: 74149083502     PISSN: 14772019     EISSN: 14780941     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1477201909990046     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Bather, F. A. 1930. A class of Echinoderma without trace of radial symmetry. Archivio Zoologico Italiano 14: 431-439.
2. Bonik, K., Gutmann, W. F. & Haude, R. 1978. Stachelhäuter mit Kiemenapparat: Der Beleg für die Ableitung der Echinodermen von Chordatieren. Natur und Museum 108: 211-214.
3. Bottjer, D. J., Davidson, E. H., Peterson, K. J.&Cameron, R. A. 2006. Paleogenomics of echinoderms. Science 314: 956-960.
4. Bourlat, S. J., Juliusdottir, T., Lowe, C. J., Freeman, R., Aronowicz, J., Kirschner, M., Lander, E. S., Thorndyke, M., Nakano, H., Kohn, A. B., Heyland, A., Moroz, L. L., Copley, R. R. & Telford, M. J. 2006. Deuterostome phylogeny reveals monophyletic chordates and the new phylum Xenoturbellida. Nature 444: 85-88.
5. Bromley, R. G. 1996. Trace fossils: biology, taphonomy and applications. Chapman & Hall: London, 361 pp.
6. Bruguìere, J. G. 1791. Tableau encycloṕedique et ḿethodique des trois r̀egnes de la nature, contenant l'helminthologie, ou les vers infusoires, les vers intestins, les vers mollusques, etc., volume 7. Panckoucke: Paris, 180 pp.
7. Cameron, C. B. 2005. A phylogeny of the hemichordates based on morphological characters. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83: 196-215.
8. Daniel, T. L. 1984. Unsteady aspects of aquatic locomotion. Integrative and Comparative Biology 24: 121-134.
9. David, B., Lefebvre, B., Mooi, R. & Parsley, R. L. 2000. Are homalozoans echinoderms? An answer from the extraxial-axial theory. Paleobiology 26: 529-555.
10. Delsuc, F., Brinkmann, H., Chourrot, D.&Philippe, H. 2006. Tunicates and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates. Nature 439: 965-968.
11. Doḿinguez, P. 1999. The early evolution of echinoderms: the class Ctenocystoidea and its closest relatives revisited. Pp. 263-268 in M. D. Candia Carnevali & F. Bonasoro (eds) Echinoderm research 1998. Balkema: Rotterdam.
12. - 2004. Sisteḿatica, anatoḿia, estructura y funcíon de Ctenocystoidea (Echinodermata, Carpoidea) del Paleozoico Inferior. Universidad Complutense de Madrid: Madrid, 538 pp.
13. - & Jefferies, R. P. S. 2005. A cladogram for the Deuterostomia based on molecular-biological and fossil evidence. Pp. 30 in P. M. Barrett (ed.) Abstracts of the 53rd symposium on vertebrate palaeontology and comparative anatomy. The Natural History Museum: London.
14. Dunn, C. W., Hejnol, A., Matus, D. Q., Pang, K., Browne, W. E., Smith, S. A., Seaver, E., Rouse, G. W., Obst, M., Edgecombe, G. D., Sørensen, M. V., Haddock, S. H. D., Schmidt-Rhaesa, A., Okusu, A., Kristensen, R.M., Wheeler, W. C., Martindale, M.Q.& Giribet, G. 2008. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 452: 745-750.
15. Dzik, J. 1999. Evolutionary origin of asymmetry in early metazoan animals. Pp. 153-190 in G. Ṕalyi, C. Zucchi & L. Caglioti (eds) Advances in biochirality. Elsevier: Amsterdam.
16. - & Orłowski, S. 1995. Primitive ctenocystoid echinoderm from the earliest Middle Cambrian of Poland. Annales de Paĺeontologie 81: 17-35.
17. Fatka, O. & Kordule, V. 1985. Etoctenocystis bohemica gen. et sp. nov., new ctenocystoid from Czechoslovakia (Echinodermata, Middle Cambrian). Věstníik Ú středního ústavu geologického 60: 225-230.
18. Friedrich, W. P. 1993. Systematik und Funktionsmorphologiemittelkambrischer Cincta (Carpoidea, Echinodermata). Beringeria 7: 3-190.
19. Gilliland, P. M. 1993. The skeletal morphology, systematics and evolutionary history of holothurians. Special Papers in Palaeontology 47: 1-148.
20. Hyman, L. H. 1955. The invertebrates, vol.4, Echinodermata. McGraw-Hill: New York, 763 pp.
21. Jaekel, O. 1901. Über Carpoideen; eine neue Klasse von Pelmatozoen. Zeitschrift der deutschen geologischen Gellschaft 52: 661-677.
22. Jefferies, R. P. S. 1997. A defence of the calcichordates. Lethaia 30: 1-10.
23. - , Brown, N. A.&Daley, P.E. J. 1996. The early phylogeny of chordates and echinoderms and the origin of chordate left-right asymmetry and bilateral symmetry. Acta Zoologica 77: 101-122.
24. Jell, P. A., Burrett, C. F.&Banks, M.R. 1985. Cambrian andOrdovician echinoderms from eastern Australia. Alcheringa 9: 183-208.
25. Kerr, A. M. 2001. Phylogeny of the apodan holothurians (Echinodermata) inferred from morphology. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 133: 53-62.
26. - &Kim, J. 2001. Phylogeny of Holothuroidea (Echinodermata) inferred from morphology. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 133: 63-81.
27. Klein, J. T. 1734. Naturalis dispositio Echinodermatum. Accessit lucubratiuncula de aculeis echinorum marinorum, cum spicilegio de belemnitis. Schreiber: Gedani, 79 pp.
28. Liddell, W. D., Wright, S. H.&Brett, C. E. 1997. Sequence stratigraphy and paleoecology of the Middle Cambrian Spence Shale in northern Utah and southern Idaho. Brigham Young Geology Studies 42: 59-78.
29. Littlewood, D. T. J., Smith, A. B., Clough, K. A. & Emson, R. H. 1997. The interrelationships of the echinoderm classes: morphological and molecular evidence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 61: 409-438.
30. O'Dor, R. K. & Webber, D. M. 1991. Invertebrate athletes: trade-offs between transport efficiency and power density in cephalopod evolution. Journal of Experimental Biology 160: 93-112.
31. O'Loughlin, P. M. & VandenSpiegel, D. 2007. New apodid species from southern Australia (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea: Apodida). Memoirs of Museum Victoria 64: 53-70.
32. Olesen, J. 1973. The hydraulic mechanism of labial extension and jet propulsion in dragonfly nymphs. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 81: 53-55.
33. Parsley, R.L. 1999. TheCincta (Homostelea) as blastozoans. Pp. 369-375 in M. D. Candia Carnevali & F. Bonasoro (eds) Echinoderm research 1998. Balkema: Rotterdam.
34. - & Prokop, R. J. 2004. Functional morphology and paleoecology of some sessile Middle Cambrian echinoderms from the Barrandian region of Bohemia. Bulletin of Geosciences 79: 147-156.
35. Peterson, K. J. 1995. A phylogenetic test of the calcichordate scenario. Lethaia 28: 25-38.
36. - & Eernisse, D. J. 2001. Animal phylogeny and the ancestry of bilaterians: inferences frommorphology and 18S rDNA gene sequences. Evolution & Development 3: 170-205.
37. Robison, R. A. & Sprinkle, J. 1969. Ctenocystoidea: new class of primitive echinoderms. Science 166: 1512-1514.
38. Ruppert, E.E. 2005.Key characters uniting hemichordates and chordates: homologies or homoplasies? Canadian Journal of Zoology 83: 8-23.
39. Savazzi, E. 1994. Functional morphology of boring and burrowing invertebrates. Pp. 43-82 in S. K. Donovan (ed.) The palaeobiology of trace fossils. Wiley: Chichester.
40. Smith, A. B. 1980. Stereom microstructure of the echinoid test. Special Papers in Palaeontology 25: 1-81.
41. - 2005. The pre-radial history of echinoderms. Geological Journal 40: 255-280.
42. - 2008. Deuterostomes in a twist: the origins of a radical new body plan. Evolution & Development 10: 493-503.
43. Sprinkle, J. & Robison, R. A. 1978. Addendum to subphylum Homalozoa. Ctenocystoids. Pp. T998-T1002 in R. C. Moore & C. Teichert (eds) Echinodermata 2, Crinoidea. Part T of R. C. Moore (ed.) Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Geological Society of America: New York.
44. Sumrall, C. D. 1997. The role of fossils in the phylogenetic reconstruction of Echinodermata. Pp. 267-288 in J. A. Waters & C. G. Maples (eds) Geobiology of echinoderms. Paleontological society papers 3. Carnegie Museum of Natural History: Pittsburgh.
45. - & Wray, G. A. 2007. Ontogeny in the fossil record: diversification of body plans and the evolution of "aberrant" symmetry in Paleozoic echinoderms. Paleobiology 33: 149-163.
46. Sutton, M. D. 2008. Tomographic techniques for the study of exceptionally preserved fossils. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275: 1587-1593.
47. - , Briggs, D. E. G., Siveter, D. J. & Siveter, D. J. 2001. Methodologies for the visualization and reconstruction of threedimensional fossils from the Silurian Herefordshire Lagerstätte. Paleontologica Electronica 4 (1): article 2. Available at: http://palaeoelectronica. org/2001-1/s2/issue1-01.htm.
48. - , -, -, - & Orr, P. J. 2002. The arthropod Offacolus kingi (Chelicerata) from the Silurian of Herefordshire, England: computer based morphological reconstructions and phylogenetic affinities. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B 269: 1195-1203.
49. Swalla, B. J. & Smith, A. B. 2008. Deciphering deuterostome phylogeny: molecular, morphological and palaeontological perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 363: 1557-1568.
50. Thandar, A. S. & Rowe, F. W. 1989. New species and new records of apodous holothurians (Echinodermata, Holothuroidea) from southern Africa. Zoologica Scripta 18: 145-155.
51. Ubaghs, G. 1975. Early Palaeozoic echinoderms. Reviews in Earth and Planetary Science 3: 79-98.
52. - 1987. Echinodermes nouveaux du Cambrien moyen de la Montagne Noire (France). Annales de Paĺeontologie 73: 1-27.
53. - & Robison, R. A. 1988. Homalozoan echinoderms of the Wheeler Formation (Middle Cambrian) of western Utah. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Paper 120: 1-17.
54. Zamora, S. & Smith, A. B. 2008. A new Middle Cambrian stem-group echinoderm from Spain: palaeobiological implications of a highly asymmetric cinctan. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 53: 207-220.