Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T12:45:38.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The spondylium and related structures in the clitambonitidine brachiopods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Olev Vinn  and
Madis Rubel
Olev Vinn
Affiliation:
Institute of Geology, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46, Tartu 50090, Estonia
Madis Rubel
Affiliation:
Institute of Geology, University of Tartu, Vanemuise 46, Tartu 50090, Estonia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Development of the ventral muscle field has been studied in 12 genera of clitambonitidine brachiopods: Eremotoechia, Clitambonites, Vellamo, Pahlenella, Lacunarites, Oslogonites, Gonambonites, Estlandia, Anchigonites, Kullervo, Antigonambonites, and Raunites. The last two have a pseudospondylium instead of spondylium, which links them to polytoechiids. The spondylium of the studied genera is not derived from convergent dental plates, but develops from the free plate in the early phase of morphogenesis. The early growth stages of spondylium triplex and simplex are identical. The hypothetical ancestor of clitambonitidines with spondylium was presumably a protorthid-like brachiopod probably of the mid-Cambrian age. On the contrary, polytoechiids, as well as Antigonambonites and Raunites, may have been derived from a late Cambrian billingsellid with dental plates. The polyphyly of clitambonitidines follows from development of their ventral muscle field.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 74 , Issue 3 , May 2000 , pp. 439 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 2000

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

Brock, G. A. 1998. Middle Cambrian articulate brachiopods from the southern New England Fold Belt, north eastern N. S. W., Australia. Journal of Paleontology, 72:604–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, G. A. 1976. Lower Cambrian brachiopods from the Rift Valley (Israel and Jordan). Journal of Paleontology 50:269–289.Google Scholar
Havlíček, V. 1977. Brachiopods of the Order of Orthida in Czechoslovakia. Rozpravy Ústrédniho Ústavu geologického, 44:1–328.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, R. 1929. Les brachipodes gothlandiens de la Podolie polonaise. Paleontologia Polonica, 1:1–254.Google Scholar
Öpik, A. 1934. Über Klitamboniten. Acta et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis (Dorpatensis), A26, 239 p.Google Scholar
Popov, L. Yu. 1992. The Cambrian radiation of brachiopods, p. 399–423. In Signor, P. W. (ed.), Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popov, L. Yu., Holmer, L. M., and Bassett, M. G. 1996. Radiation of the earliest calcareous brachiopods, p. 209–213. In Copper, P. and Jin, J. (eds.), Brachiopods: Proceedings of the Third International Brachipod Congress, Sudbury/Ontario, Canada. Balkema Press, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Williams, A., and Rowell, A. J. 1965. Morphology, p. H57–H138. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H, Brachiopoda 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Brunton, C. H. C., and MacKinnon, D. I. 1997. Morphology, p. 388–392. In Kaesler, R. L. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H, Brachiopoda 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Wright, A. D. 1996. Some morphological problems of brachiopod taxonomy. Geologiska Föreningen Förhandlingar 118 Jubilee Issue, A62–63.Google Scholar
Wright, A. D., and Rubel, M. 1996. A review of the morphological features affecting the classification of the clitambonitidine brachiopods. Palaeontology, 39:53–75.Google Scholar