964
Journal of Paleontology
et al., 2014 is the type and only other known species. The diagnosis of Nidelric is emended from Hou et al. (2014), based on the complexity of spines, which is discussed below. Both Nidelric pugio and N. gaoloufangensis n. sp. are more
or less ovoid in profile. The spines, which consist of a single element, are triangular and broadly based, with most being preserved along the body margin. Only a few spines can be discerned on the body surface. Some spines are normal or skew to the margin, and the tips of most spines are deflected towards the narrower end of the body. Based on these similarities, the metazoan in this paper is placed in the genus Nidelric. This indicates that Nidelric is not restricted to the Chengjiang Lagerstätte and, instead, this taxon is rather long-lived and was widespread in early Cambrian Chinese faunas (Hou et al., 2014).
The most obvious difference between Nidelric pugio and
N. gaoloufangensis n. sp. lies in the complexity of the spines. The spines of N. pugio are more complex, and are covered with small triangular scales on the upper or lower surface; the spines of N. gaoloufangensis n. sp. are relatively simple and devoid of ornamentation. The size of the spines in N. pugio increases from the narrower end to the broader end of the body, whereas the spines of N. gaoloufangensis n. sp. do not show this pattern. Both ends of the body of N. pugio are more or less triangular in profile, whereas the body ofN. gaoloufangensis n. sp. has gently curved ends. Based on these differences, the metazoan in this paper should be established as a new species of Nidelric. Although all the specimens show that N. gaoloufangensis
Figure 8. Allonnia tenuis n. sp. specimens on the same slab. White arrow points to specimen YN-GLF-PAL-47. Scale bar=10mm.
internal cavities found in the lateral rays of Allonnia tenuis n. sp. (Fig.6).
Folds, relief, and depressions can be discerned on the body
surface (Figs. 9.1, 13.1, 13.2) and they are subcircular in profile with diameters ranging from 0.4 to 0.7mm, and average spacing between of 0.5mm. These “nodes” are not complete structures because broken marks are discernible on their tops (Fig. 9.3).
Etymology.—After the Gaoloufang section, where the speci- mens were collected.
Materials.—18 specimens including the holotype.
Remarks.—Nidelric gaoloufangensis n. sp. was mentioned by Hu et al. (2013) and considered to be a new kind of chancel- loriid, but no detailed studies were provided. Hou et al. (2014) described a chancelloriid-like metazoan from the Chengjiang Lagerstätte and established the genus Nidelric, which has many similarities to the metazoan described here. Nidelric pugio Hou
surface of Nidelric gaoloufangensis n. sp. (e.g., longitudinal folds [Fig. 10.7], transverse folds [Fig. 10.3], relief, and depressions [Figs.12.1, 12.3, 13.3]). One specimen (Fig. 13.4) shows a greatly twisted body, but no crack can be observed on the surface. Due to the flexible and ductile body, this new species can be preserved in different body profiles. Node-like structures and pits can be observed on the body
n. sp. is small in body size (the maximum height is 24mm), the size variation between individuals can be as much as twice that, (e.g., YN-GLF-PAL-18, Fig. 10.1; YN-GLF-PAL-98, Fig. 11.2). Without major morphological differences, this kind of variation should be considered either intraspecific or possibly ontogenetic. Archiasterella fletchergryllus Randell, Lieberman, and
Hasiotis, 2005 shows short stalks on the body surface, which were considered to be the joints between the sclerites and the integument (Randell et al., 2005). These structures were first discovered and interpreted by Chen and Zhou (1997). Similar structures can also be observed on the body surface of N. gaoloufangensis n. sp. Both the node-like structures and pits of N. gaoloufangensis n. sp. have the same diameter range (0.4–0.7mm), which is very similar with the base width (0.5mm) of the spines preserved on the body margin and surface. More importantly, broken marks can be observed on almost all the tops of the node-like structures. This strongly suggests that the node-like structure and pit are the remains of broken spines: the node-like structure is the basal part and the pit is formed when the whole spine is removed. These remains are quite similar to those found in Allonnia tenuis n. sp. (Fig. 5.4). The circular structure seen at the proximal end of a marginal spine of Nidelric pugio (Hou et al., 2014, figs. 1d, 2) further confirms this relationship between the spines and these structrures. A concentration of spines was found at the broader end of
Nidelric pugio and thought to be possibly analogous to the tuft seen in chancelloriids (Hou et al., 2014). Conversely, the whole- body preserved specimens of N. gaoloufangensis n. sp. show a clear tuft-like structure at the narrower end and spines at the broader end, being bounded by the axis of the body, almost
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 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190
