4.7 Article

A sclerite-bearing stem group entoproct from the early Cambrian and its implications

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 3, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep01066

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41072017, 40830208]
  2. 973 Project [2013CB835002]
  3. Programme of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities [P201102007]
  4. Swedish Research Council (VR) [2009-4395, 2012-1658]
  5. Australian Research Council Discovery Project [120104251]
  6. State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy in Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, CAS [123117, KZCX2-EW-115]
  7. Ministry of Education of China [FANEDD200936, NCET-11-1046]
  8. Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2011M501273]
  9. Shaanxi Bureau of Science and Techonology [2011kjxx37, 2011JZ006]
  10. Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation [G121016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Lophotrochozoa includes disparate tentacle-bearing sessile protostome animals, which apparently appeared in the Cambrian explosion, but lack an uncontested fossil record. Here we describe abundant well preserved material of Cotyledion tylodes Luo et Hu, 1999, from the Cambrian (Series 2) Chengjiang deposits, reinterpreted here as a stem-group entoproct. The entoproct affinity is supported by the sessile body plan and interior soft anatomy. The body consists of an upper calyx and a lower elongate stalk with a distal holdfast. The soft anatomy includes a U-shaped gut with a mouth and aboral anus ringed by retractable marginal tentacles. Cotyledion differs from extant entoprocts in being larger, and having the calyx and the stalk covered by numerous loosely-spaced external sclerites. The description of entoprocts from the Chengjiang biota traces the ancestry of yet another lophotrochozoan phylum back to the Cambrian radiation, and has important implications for the earliest evolution of lophotrochozoans.

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