4.6 Article

The problematic Cambrian arthropod Tuzoia and the origin of mandibulates revisited

期刊

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.220933

关键词

Cambrian; Burgess Shale; arthropods; mandibulates; palaeoecology; taphonomic bias

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides a comprehensive reconstruction of the anatomy, ecology, and evolutionary affinities of Tuzoia, a bivalved arthropod from the Cambrian period. The analysis reveals that Tuzoia swam along the seafloor and used its unique leg structure for predation or scavenging. Bayesian phylogenetic analysis places Tuzoia as an early mandibulate hymenocarine lineage.
The origin of mandibulates, the hyperdiverse arthropod group that includes pancrustaceans and myriapods, dates back to the Cambrian. Bivalved arthropod groups such as hymenocarines have been argued to be early mandibulates, but many species are still poorly known, and their affinities remain uncertain. One of the most common and globally distributed Cambrian bivalved arthropods is Tuzoia. Originally described in 1912 from the Burgess Shale based on isolated carapaces, its full anatomy has remained largely unknown. Here, we describe new specimens of Tuzoia from the Canadian Burgess Shale (Wuliuan, Cambrian) showcasing exceptionally preserved soft tissues, allowing for the first comprehensive reconstruction of its anatomy, ecology and evolutionary affinities. The head bears antennae and differentiated cephalic appendages. The body is divided into a cephalothorax, a homonomous trunk bearing ca 10 pairs of legs with heptopodomerous endopods and enlarged basipods, and a tail fan with two pairs of caudal rami. These traits suggest that Tuzoia swam along the seafloor and used its spinose legs for predation or scavenging. Tuzoia is retrieved by a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis as an early mandibulate hymenocarine lineage, exemplifying the rapid diversification of this group in open marine environments during the Cambrian Explosion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据