4.7 Article

Embryos, polyps and medusae of the Early Cambrian scyphozoan Olivooides

Journal

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.0071

Keywords

Olivooides; cnidarian; scyphozoan; medusa; fossil; embryo

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41072006]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy
  3. Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology
  4. Chinese Academy of Sciences [103102]
  5. Research Fund for Doctoral Program of High Education [20060001059]
  6. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) [NE/F00348X/1]
  7. NERC
  8. Swiss Light Source, courtesy of the Paul Scherrer Institut
  9. NERC [NE/J018325/1, NE/F00348X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/J018325/1, NE/F00348X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Early Cambrian organism Olivooides is known from both embryonic and post-embryonic stages and, consequently, it has the potential to yield vital insights into developmental evolution at the time that animal body plans were established. However, this potential can only be realized if the phylogenetic relationships of Olivooides can be constrained. The affinities of Olivooides have proved controversial because of the lack of knowledge of the internal anatomy and the limited range of developmental stages known. Here, we describe rare embryonic specimens in which internal anatomical features are preserved. We also present a fuller sequence of fossilized developmental stages of Olivooides, including associated specimens that we interpret as budding ephyrae (juvenile medusae), all of which display a clear pentaradial symmetry. Within the framework of a cnidarian interpretation, the new data serve to pinpoint the phylogenetic position of Olivooides to the scyphozoan stem group. Hypotheses about scalidophoran or echinoderm affinities of Olivooides can be rejected.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available