4.3 Article

Burgess Shale-type microfossils from the middle Cambrian Kaili Formation, Guizhou Province, China

Journal

ACTA PALAEONTOLOGICA POLONICA
Volume 57, Issue 2, Pages 423-436

Publisher

INST PALEOBIOLOGII PAN
DOI: 10.4202/app.2011.0028

Keywords

Kaili biota; Priapulida; acritarchs; palynology; taphonomy; Cambrian; Guizhou Province; China

Categories

Funding

  1. NERC studentship
  2. Palaeontological Association
  3. Selwyn college, Cambridge
  4. Sidney Sussex college, Cambridge
  5. CONACYT (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia)
  6. University of Cambridge Trusts
  7. Darwin College, Cambridge
  8. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-YW-BR-23]
  9. NERC [NE/H009914/1]
  10. NERC [NE/H009914/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/H009914/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diverse carbonaceous microfossils, including exceptionally preserved remains of non-biomineralizing metazoans, are reported from a basal middle Cambrian interval of the Kaili Formation (Guizhou Province, China). The application of a gentle acid maceration technique complements previous palynological studies by revealing a larger size-class of acritarchs, a richer assemblage of filamentous microfossils, and a variety of previously unrecovered forms. Metazoan fossils include Wiwaxia sclerites and elements derived from biomineralizing taxa, including chancelloriids, brachiopods and hyolithids, in common with previously studied assemblages from the early and middle Cambrian of Canada. In addition, the Kaili Formation has yielded pterobranch remains and an assemblage of cuticle fragments representing soft-bodied worms, including a priapulid-like scalidophoran. Our results demonstrate the wide distribution and palaeobiological importance of microscopic Burgess Shale-type fossils, and provide insights into the limitations and potential of this largely untapped preservational mode

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available