4.8 Article

Meiofaunal deuterostomes from the basal Cambrian of Shaanxi (China)

期刊

NATURE
卷 542, 期 7640, 页码 228-231

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature21072

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [41621003, 41272019, 41572017, 41672009]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2013CB835002]
  3. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  4. Program for New Century Excellent Talents
  5. Ministry of Education of China
  6. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge
  7. St. John's College, Cambridge

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Deuterostomes(1) include the group we belong to (vertebrates) as well as an array of disparate forms that include echinoderms(2), hemichordates(3) and more problematic groups such as vetulicolians(4) and vetulocystids(5). The Cambrian fossil record is well-populated with representative examples, but possible intermediates(6,7) are controversial and the nature of the original deuterostome remains idealized. Here we report millimetric fossils, Saccorhytus coronarius nov. gen., nov. sp., from an Orsten-like Lagerstatte from the earliest Cambrian period of South China, which stratigraphically are amongst the earliest of deuterostomes. The bag-like body bears a prominent mouth and associated folds, and behind them up to four conical openings on either side of the body as well as possible sensory structures. An anus may have been absent, and correspondingly the lateral openings probably served to expel water and waste material. This new form has similarities to both the vetulicolians4 and vetulocystids5 and collectively these findings suggest that a key step in deuterostome evolution was the development of lateral openings that subsequently were co-opted as pharyngeal gills(2-4,8). Depending on its exact phylogenetic position, the meiofaunal habit of Saccorhytus may help to explain the major gap between divergence times seen in the fossil record and estimates based on molecular clocks(9).

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

4.8
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