Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:52:37.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early post-embryonic development in Ellipsostrenua (Trilobita, Cambrian, Sweden) and the developmental patterns in Ellipsocephaloidea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2018

Lukáš Laibl Open the ORCID record for Lukáš Laibl [Opens in a new window] ,
Peter Cederström  and
Per Ahlberg
Lukáš Laibl
Affiliation:
National Museum Prague, Department of Paleontology, Cirkusová 1740, 193 00 Praha 9, Czech Republic 〈lukaslaibl@gmail.com〉 The Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geology, Rozvojová 269, 165 00 Praha 6, Czech Republic 〈lukaslaibl@gmail.com〉
Peter Cederström
Affiliation:
Axelvoldsvägen 27, SE-241 35 Eslöv, Sweden 〈peter.cederstrom@telia.com〉
Per Ahlberg
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden 〈per.ahlberg@geol.lu.se〉
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study documents the early post-embryonic developmental stages (protaspides and early meraspides) of the Cambrian trilobite Ellipsostrenua granulosa (Ahlberg, 1984) from the Gärdsjön Formation of Jämtland, Sweden. The early protaspid stage is characterized by a circular outline of the exoskeleton, two pairs of fixigenal spines, a short preglabellar field, a genal swelling, and prominent bacullae. The late protaspid stage differs only in having the trunk portion discernible. Early meraspid cranidia are sub-rectangular with prominent palpebral lobes, a wide anterior margin, a proportionally long anterior branch of the facial suture, and intergenal spines. Meraspid pygidia tentatively assigned to this species possess comparatively long macrospines. Small hypostomes associated with E. granulosa bear at least four pairs of marginal spines. A comparison of the early developmental stages of E. granulosa with some other species of Ellipsocephalidae and with species of the closely related Estaingiidae reveals several similarities. The conservative morphology of the early protaspid stage with only two pairs of fixigenal spines, the timing of the development of the trunk portion, and the presence of genal swellings and prominent bacullae could be phylogenetically informative. The range of size variation of the early protaspid stages in two families may be related either to taxonomical differences between Ellipsocephalidae and Estaingiidae, or to environmental differences in various paleogeographic settings.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 92 , Issue 6 , November 2018 , pp. 1018 - 1027
Copyright
Copyright © 2018, The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adrain, J.M., 2011, Class Trilobita Walch, 1771, in Zhang, Z.-Q., ed., Animal biodiversity: an outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness: Zootaxa, v. 3148, p. 104–109.Google Scholar
Ahlberg, P., 1984, A Lower Cambrian trilobite fauna from Jämtland, central Scandinavian Caledonides: Geologiska Föreningens i Stockholm Förhandlingar, v. 105, for 1983, p. 349–361.Google Scholar
Ahlberg, P., and Bergström, J., 1978, Lower Cambrian ptychopariid trilobites from Scandinavia: Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, v. Ca49, p. 1–41.Google Scholar
Ahlberg, P., Cederström, P., and Babcock, L.E., 2016, Cambrian Series 2 biostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy of Scandinavia: a reappraisal, in Laurie, J.R., Kruse, P.D., García-Bellido, D.C., and Holmes, J.D., eds., Palaeo Down Under 2, Adelaide, July 2016: Geological Society of Australia Abstracts, v. 117, p 16.Google Scholar
Asklund, B., and Thorslund, P., 1935, Fjällkedjerandens bergbyggnad i norra Jämtland och Ångermanland: Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, v. C382, p. 1–110. [in Swedish].Google Scholar
Campbell, M.J., and Chatterton, B.D.E., 2009, Silurian lichid trilobites from Northwestern Canada: ontogeny and phylogeny of lichids: Journal of Paleontology, v. 83, p. 263–279.Google Scholar
Cederström, P., Ahlberg, P., Clarkson, E.N.K., Nilsson, C.H., and Axheimer, N., 2009, The Lower Cambrian eodiscoid trilobite Calodiscus lobatus from Sweden: Morphology, ontogeny and distribution: Palaeontology, v. 52, p. 491–539.Google Scholar
Cederström, P., Ahlberg, P., Nilsson, C.H., Ahlgren, J., and Eriksson, M.E., 2011, Moulting, ontogeny and sexual dimorphism in the Cambrian ptychopariid trilobite Strenuaeva inflata from the northern Swedish Caledonides: Palaeontology, v. 54, p. 685–703.Google Scholar
Cederström, P., Ahlberg, P., Babcock, L.E., Ahlgren, J., Høyberget, M., and Nilsson, C.H., 2012, Morphology, ontogeny and distribution of the Cambrian Series 2 ellipsocephalid trilobite Strenuaeva spinosa from Scandinavia: GFF, v. 134, p. 157–171.Google Scholar
Chang, W.-T., 1953, Some Lower Cambrian trilobites from western Hupei: Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, v. 1, p. 121–149. [in Chinese, English summary]Google Scholar
Chang, W.-T., 1957, Cambrian and Ordovician stratigraphy of the gorge district of the Yangtze, Hupeh: Keuxe Tongbao, v. 5, 145 p.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B.D.E., 1971, Taxonomy and ontogeny of Siluro-Devonian trilobites from near Yass, New South Wales: Palaeontographica, Abteilung A, v. 137, 108 p.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B.D.E., and Speyer, S.E., 1997, Ontogeny, in Kaesler, R.L., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part O, Arthropoda 1, Trilobita, Revised, v. Volume 1, Introduction, Order Agnostida, Order Redlichiida, Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, p. 173–247.Google Scholar
Chatterton, B.D.E., Siveter, D.J., Edgecombe, G.D., and Hunt, A.S., 1990, Larvae and relationships of the Calymenina (Trilobita): Journal of Paleontology, v. 64, p. 255–277.Google Scholar
Dai, T., and Zhang, X., 2011, Ontogeny of the eodiscoid trilobite Tsunyidiscus acutus from the Lower Cambrian of South China: Palaeontology, v. 54, p. 1279–1288.Google Scholar
Dai, T., and Zhang, X., 2012, Ontogeny of the trilobite Estaingia sinensis (Chang) from the Lower Cambrian of South China: Bulletin of Geosciences, v. 87, p. 151–158.Google Scholar
Edgecombe, G.D., Speyer, S.E., and Chatterton, B.D.E., 1988, Protaspid larvae and phylogenetics of encrinurid trilobites: Journal of Paleontology, v. 62, p. 779–799.Google Scholar
Elicki, O., and Geyer, G., 2013, The Cambrian trilobites of Jordan—taxonomy, systematic and stratigraphic significance: Acta Geologica Polonica, v. 63, p. 1–56.Google Scholar
Fortey, R.A., and Chatterton, B.D.E., 1988, Classification of the trilobite suborder Asaphina: Palaeontology, v. 31, p. 165–222.Google Scholar
Geyer, G., 1990, Die marokkanischen Ellipsocephalidae (Trilobita: Redlichiida): Beringeria, v. 3, 363 p.Google Scholar
Geyer, G., and Landing, E., 2004, A unified Lower-Middle Cambrian chronostratigraphy for West Gondwana: Acta Geologica Polonica, v. 54, p. 179–218.Google Scholar
Hall, J., 1847, Palaeontology: Volume 1. Containing descriptions of the organic remains of the lower division of the New-York system (equivalent of the Lower Silurian rocks of Europe). Natural History of New York, Pt. 6: New York, D. Appleton & Company and Wiley & Putnam; Boston, Gould, Kendall, & Lincoln; Albany, Charles van Benthuysen, 338 p.Google Scholar
Hammer, O., Harper, D.A.T., and Ryan, P.D., 2001, Past: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis: Palaeontologia Electronica, v. 4, p. 1–9.Google Scholar
Henningsmoen, G., 1959, Family Ellipsocephalidae, in Moore, R.C., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, part O, Arthropoda 1: Arthropoda—General Features, Protarthropoda, Euarthropoda—General Features, Trilobitomorpha: Lawrence, Kansas and Meriden, Connecticut, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. O207–O209.Google Scholar
Høyberget, M., Ebbestad, J.O.R, Funke, B., and Nakrem, H.A., 2015, The shelly fauna and biostratigraphy of the lower Cambrian (provisional series 2, stage 4) Evjevik Member, Ringstrand Formation in the Mjøsa area, Norway: Norwegian Journal of Geology, v. 95, p. 23–56.Google Scholar
Hughes, N.C., Minelli, A., and Fusco, G., 2006, The ontogeny of trilobite segmentation: a comparative approach: Paleobiology, v. 32, p. 602–627.Google Scholar
Jell, P.A., 1990, Trilobita, in Bengtson, S., Conway Morris, S., Cooper, B.J., Jell, P.A., and Runnegar, B.N., eds., Early Cambrian fossils from South Australia: Memoir of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, v. 9, p. 175–203.Google Scholar
Jell, P.A., and Adrain, J.M., 2003, Available generic names for trilobites: Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, v. 48, p. 331–551.Google Scholar
Kautsky, F., 1945, Die Unterkambrische Fauna vom Aistjakk in Lappland: Geologiska Föreningens i Stockholm Förhandlingar, v. 67, p. 129–211. [in German, English summary].Google Scholar
Kiær, J., 1917, The Lower Cambrian Holmia fauna at Tømten in Norway: Norske Videnskapsselskapets Skrifter, I. Matematisk-Naturvitenskapelig Klasse 1916, v. 10, 140 p.Google Scholar
Korobov, M.N., 1980, Biostratigrafija i miomernye trilobity nizhnego Kembiya Mongolii: The Joint Soviet-Mongolian Scientific-Research Geological Expedition, Transactions, v. 26, p. 5–108. [In Russian].Google Scholar
Laibl, L., Fatka, O., Budil, P., Ahlberg, P., Szabad, M., Vokáč, V., and Kozák, V., 2015, The ontogeny of Ellipsocephalus (Trilobita) and systematic position of Ellipsocephalidae: Alcheringa, v. 39, p. 477–487.Google Scholar
Laibl, L., Esteve, J., and Fatka, O., 2017, Giant postembryonic stages of Hydrocephalus and Eccaparadoxides and the origin of lecithotrophy in Cambrian trilobites: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 470, p. 109–115.Google Scholar
Mabee, P.M., 2000, The usefulness of ontogeny in interpreting morphological characters, in Wiens, J.J., ed., Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data: Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press, p. 84–114.Google Scholar
Matthew, G.F., 1887, Illustrations of the fauna of the St. John Group continued. IV. On the smaller-eyed trilobites of Division I, with a few remarks on the species of the higher divisions of the group: Canadian Record of Science, v. 2, p. 357–363.Google Scholar
Öpik, A.A., 1975, Cymbric Vale Fauna of New South Wales and Early Cambrian biostratigraphy: Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, Bulletin, v. 159, 78 p.Google Scholar
Palmer, A.R., 1962, Comparative ontogeny of some opisthoparian, gonatoparian and proparian Upper Cambrian trilobites: Journal of Paleontology, v. 36, p. 87–96.Google Scholar
Palmer, A.R., 1998, Terminal early Cambrian extinction of the Olenellina: documentation from the Pioche Formation, Nevada: Journal of Paleontology, v. 72, p. 650–672.Google Scholar
Park, T.-Y., and Choi, D.K., 2011, Constraints on using ontogenetic data for trilobite phylogeny: Lethaia, v. 44, p. 250–254.Google Scholar
Park, T.-Y., and Kihm, J.-H., 2015, Post-embryonic development of the Early Ordovician (ca. 480 Ma) trilobite Apatokephalus latilimbatus Peng, 1990 and the evolution of metamorphosis: Evolution and Development, v. 17, p. 289–301.Google Scholar
Paterson, J.R., and Edgecombe, G.D., 2006, The Early Cambrian trilobite family Emuellidae Pocock, 1970: systematic position and revision of Australian species: Journal of Paleontology, v. 80, p. 496–513.Google Scholar
Poe, S., 2006, Test of Von Baer’s Law of the Conservation of Early Development: Evolution, v. 60, p. 2239–2245.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F.J., 2006, TpsDig2, digitize landmarks and outlines, version 2.10: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/.Google Scholar
Rushton, A.W.A., 1966, The Cambrian trilobites from the Purley Shales of Warwickshire: Monographs of the Palaeontographical Society, v. 120, p. 1–55.Google Scholar
Scholtz, G., 2005, Homology and ontogeny: pattern and process in comparative developmental biology: Theory in Biosciences, v. 124, p. 121–143.Google Scholar
Sdzuy, K., 1961, Teil II: Trilobiten, in Lotze, F., and Sdzuy, K. Das Kambrium Spaniens: Mainz, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlung der Mathematische-Naturwissenschaftligen Klasse, p. 499–594.Google Scholar
Størmer, L., 1942, Studies on trilobite morphology, Part II. The larval development, the segmentation, and the sutures, and their bearing on trilobite classification: Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, v. 21, p. 49–164.Google Scholar
Suvorova, N.P., 1956, Trilobity Kembriya vostoka Sibirskoy platformy: Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta Akademiya Nauk SSSR, v. 63, 158 p [in Russian].Google Scholar
Šnajdr, M., 1958, Trilobiti českého středního kambria: Rozpravy Ústředního ústavu geologického, v. 24, 280 p. [in Czech, English summary]Google Scholar
Torsvik, T.H., and Cocks, L.R.M., 2013, New global palaeogeographical reconstructions for the Early Palaeozoic and their generation, in Harper, D.A.T., and Servais, T., eds., Early Palaeozoic Biogeography and Palaeogeography: Geological Society, London, Memoirs, v. 38, p. 5–24.Google Scholar
Webster, M., 2007, Ontogeny and evolution of the Early Cambrian trilobite genus Nephrolenellus (Olenelloidea): Journal of Paleontology, v. 81, p. 1168–1193.Google Scholar
Westergård, A.H., 1936, Paradoxides oelandicus beds of Öland, with the account of a diamond boring through the Cambrian at Mossberga: Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, v. C 394, p. 1–67.Google Scholar
Westrop, S.R., and Landing, E., 2000, Lower Cambrian (Branchian) trilobites and biostratigraphy of the Hanford Brook Formation, southern New Brunswick: Journal of Paleontology, v. 74, p. 858–878.Google Scholar
Whittington, H.B., 1957, The ontogeny of trilobites: Biological Reviews, v. 32, p. 421–467.Google Scholar
Whittington, H.B., and Kelly, S.R.A., 1997, Morphological terms applied to Trilobita, in Kaesler, R.L., ed., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part O, Arthropoda 1, Trilobita, Revised, v. Volume 1, Introduction, Order Agnostida, Order Redlichiida, Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, Kansas, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, p. O313–O330.Google Scholar
Yi, D., 1988, Ontogeny of Palaeolenus lantenoisi (Trilobita): Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, v. 27, p. 31–38. [in Chinese, English summary].Google Scholar
Zenker, J.C., 1833, Beiträge zur Naturgesichte der Urwelt. Organische Reste (Petrefacten) aus der Altenbruger Braunkohlen-Formation, dem Blankenburger Quadersandstein, Jenaischen bunten Sandstein und Böhmischen Uebergangsgebirge: Jena, Friedrich Mauke, 67 p.Google Scholar
Zhang, W.-T., Lu, Y.-H., Zhu, Z.-L., Qian, Y.-Y., Lin, H.-L., Zhou, Z.-Y., Zhang, S.-G., and Yuan, J.-L., 1980, Cambrian trilobite faunas of southwestern China: Palaeontologica Sinica. 159, 497 p. [in Chinese, English summary].Google Scholar
Zhang, X.-G., and Clarkson, E.N.K., 2012, Phosphatized eodiscoid trilobites from the Cambrian of China: Palaeontographica, Abteilung A, v. 297, 121 p.Google Scholar
Zhang, X.-G., and Pratt, B. R., 1999, Early Cambrian trilobite larvae and ontogeny of Ichangia ichangensis Chang, 1957 (Protolenidae) from Henan, China: Journal of Paleontology, v. 73, p. 117–128.Google Scholar
Żylińska, A., and Masiak, M., 2007, Cambrian trilobites from Brzechów, Holy Cross Mountains (Poland) and their significance in stratigraphic correlation and biogeographic reconstructions: Geological Magazine, v. 144, p. 661–686.Google Scholar