search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Liu et al.—Upper Cambrian cycloneuralians from South China


95


Figure 7. Austroscolex sinensis new species from the Furongian Bitiao Formation of Wangcun section. (1) NIGP160457; (2) holotype, NIGP160456; (3) enlargement of area in rectangle in (1); (4) enlargement of area in rectangle in (2). (1, 2) Scale bar = 500 µm; (3) scale bar = 128 µm; (4) scale bar = 59 µm.


Eopriapulites likely represents an ancestral form of cycloneur- alians. If we accept Eopriapulites as a potential ancestral cycloneuralian, the last common ancestor of the Cycloneuralia, and even of the Ecdysozoa, might have been microscopic and possessed an introvert with internally hollow scalids. This character was retained by the last common ancestor of Scalidophora and by the last common ancestor of Nematoida, but got lost secondarily in crown-group Nematoida.


Discussion


The Wangcun section is an ideal place to test the possible rela- tionship between the fossil embryo Markuelia and palaeoscolecids


because they co-occurred in the key horizon (Fig. 1.2). Markuelia was previously proposed to be a direct developer (Dong et al., 2004), but this is difficult to verify due to the lack of fossils representing the postembryonic or free-living stages (Haug et al., 2009). Huang et al. (2006) proposed that Markuelia might be a palaeoscolecid, but this was challenged by Duan et al. (2012) because of the distinct anatomies of the two taxa. For example, Markuelia fossils uniformly have three pairs of tail spines (Dong et al., 2010), whereas palaeoscolecids have only one or two pairs of tail spines (Duan et al., 2012). Palaeoscolecids are ornamented with plates, platelets, and microplates on the trunks, whereas Markuelia has few trunk ornamentations. The debate cannot be resolved with confidence because palaeoscolecids are represented


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124