Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
    • Journal home
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Geological Society home
  • Content
    • Online First
    • Issue in progress
    • All issues
    • All collections
    • Thematic Collections
    • Supplementary publications
    • Open Access
  • Subscribe
    • GSL fellows
    • Institutions
    • Corporate
    • Other member types
  • Info
    • Authors
    • Librarians
    • Readers
    • GSL Fellows access
    • Other member type access
    • Press office
    • Accessibility
    • Help
    • Metrics
  • Alert sign up
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
  • Submit
  • Geological Society of London Publications
    • Engineering Geology Special Publications
    • Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis
    • Journal of Micropalaeontology
    • Journal of the Geological Society
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Memoirs
    • Petroleum Geology Conference Series
    • Petroleum Geoscience
    • Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society
    • Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
    • Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
    • Scottish Journal of Geology
    • Special Publications
    • Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of London

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the Geological Society
  • Geological Society of London Publications
    • Engineering Geology Special Publications
    • Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis
    • Journal of Micropalaeontology
    • Journal of the Geological Society
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Memoirs
    • Petroleum Geology Conference Series
    • Petroleum Geoscience
    • Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society
    • Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
    • Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
    • Scottish Journal of Geology
    • Special Publications
    • Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of London
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow gsl on Twitter
  • Visit gsl on Facebook
  • Visit gsl on Youtube
  • Visit gsl on Linkedin
Journal of the Geological Society

Advanced search

  • Home
    • Journal home
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Geological Society home
  • Content
    • Online First
    • Issue in progress
    • All issues
    • All collections
    • Thematic Collections
    • Supplementary publications
    • Open Access
  • Subscribe
    • GSL fellows
    • Institutions
    • Corporate
    • Other member types
  • Info
    • Authors
    • Librarians
    • Readers
    • GSL Fellows access
    • Other member type access
    • Press office
    • Accessibility
    • Help
    • Metrics
  • Alert sign up
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
  • Submit

The Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte: a view of Cambrian life from East Gondwana

John R. Paterson, Diego C. García-Bellido, James B. Jago, James G. Gehling, Michael S.Y. Lee and Gregory D. Edgecombe
Journal of the Geological Society, 173, 1-11, 10 November 2015, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2015-083
John R. Paterson
1Palaeoscience Research Centre, School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Diego C. García-Bellido
2School of Biological Sciences & Environment Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
3Earth Sciences Section, South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
James B. Jago
4School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
James G. Gehling
2School of Biological Sciences & Environment Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
3Earth Sciences Section, South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael S.Y. Lee
2School of Biological Sciences & Environment Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
3Earth Sciences Section, South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory D. Edgecombe
5Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Recent fossil discoveries from the lower Cambrian Emu Bay Shale (EBS) on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, have provided critical insights into the tempo of the Cambrian explosion of animals, such as the origin and seemingly rapid evolution of arthropod compound eyes, as well as extending the geographical ranges of several groups to the East Gondwanan margin, supporting close faunal affinities with South China. The EBS also holds great potential for broadening knowledge on taphonomic pathways involved in the exceptional preservation of fossils in Cambrian Konservat-Lagerstätten. EBS fossils display a range of taphonomic modes for a variety of soft tissues, especially phosphatization and pyritization, in some cases recording a level of anatomical detail that is absent from most Cambrian Konservat-Lagerstätten.

The lower Cambrian (Series 2, Stage 4) Emu Bay Shale (EBS) Konservat-Lagerstätte (Fig. 1) provides important information regarding the composition of early animal communities and a window on the Cambrian radiation in Gondwana. One of the most intriguing aspects of the EBS is that although it yields a biota that is taxonomically similar to Cambrian Burgess Shale-type biotas (Paterson et al. 2008), its nearshore depositional setting (Gehling et al. 2011) and disparate preservation styles (e.g. Briggs & Nedin 1997; Lee et al. 2011; Paterson et al. 2011) are at odds with our current understanding of typical Burgess Shale-type deposits and their associated taphonomic pathways and signatures (Gaines et al. 2008, 2012b). This has led Gaines (2014) to explicitly exclude the EBS from the global list of more than 50 known Burgess Shale-type deposits, pending detailed comparative study.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Geology of the area to the east of Emu Bay on the NE coast of Kangaroo Island, South Australia, showing the extent of the Emu Bay Shale at Big Gully, including the location of the main Konservat-Lagerstätte sites on the shoreline and at Buck Quarry (after Gehling et al. 2011).

Shelly fossils were first discovered in the EBS at Emu Bay in 1952 by Reginald Sprigg. In 1954, Brian Daily found large specimens of the trilobite Redlichia in the EBS at Big Gully, east of Emu Bay. However, the first description of soft-bodied EBS fossils was not published until the late 1970s (Glaessner 1979). The history of investigations on the EBS Konservat-Lagerstätte was documented by Paterson et al. (2008) and Jago & Cooper (2011).

Age, geology and palaeoenvironmental setting

The Emu Bay Shale is a formation of the lower Cambrian (Series 2) Kangaroo Island Group, a largely clastic shelf succession within the Stansbury Basin (Daily et al. 1980; Gehling et al. 2011; Jago et al. 2012). During deposition of the EBS and adjacent units, South Australia was located on the palaeoequator in the ‘tropical carbonate development zone’ (Brock et al. 2000), and formed a part of the East Gondwana margin (Torsvik & Cocks 2013). The EBS correlates with the lower Cambrian (Series 2, Stage 4) Pararaia janeae trilobite Zone of mainland South Australia, based on the presence of the trilobites Estaingia bilobata, Balcoracania dailyi and Redlichia takooensis (Jell in Bengtson et al. 1990; Jago et al. 2006; Paterson & Brock 2007; Paterson et al. 2008). This equates to the Canglangpuan Stage (= upper Nangaoan–lower Duyunian stages) of South China and the middle–upper Botoman of Siberia (Paterson & Brock 2007; Peng et al. 2012; Landing et al. 2013). Based on the calibrated 2012 Geologic Time Scale, the numerical age of the EBS is 514 ± 1 Ma (see Peng et al. 2012, fig. 19.3). The EBS is approximately coeval with the Balang and Guanshan biotas of China, but younger than the Chengjiang and Sirius Passet Lagerstätten (Peng et al. 2012).

The EBS is exposed in two areas of the northeastern coast of Kangaroo Island: (1) the type section on the western side of Emu Bay (Daily et al. 1980); (2) Big Gully, to the east of Emu Bay (Fig. 1; Gehling et al. 2011); it is only the latter site that hosts the Konservat-Lagerstätte. At Big Gully, the EBS unconformably overlies the Marsden Sandstone, a coarsening upward package of clastic sediments deposited in a shallow subtidal to shoreface setting. The base of the EBS represents a sequence boundary and is marked by a conglomerate (up to 2 m thick) that contains various clast types and sizes, including sandstone from the Marsden Sandstone. Above the conglomerate, there is a sharp transition into mudstones that contain the Konservat-Lagerstätte, which is restricted to the lower 10 m or so of the unit. Above this, sandstones become increasingly prominent and, towards the top of the formation, contain large arthropod traces. The EBS is conformably overlain by the red–brown feldspathic sandstones of the subtidal Boxing Bay Formation, which also contain abundant arthropod traces (Gehling et al. 2011).

The interval of the EBS containing the Konservat-Lagerstätte consists of dark grey, typically laminated micaceous mudstone, with common interbeds of siltstone (up to 5 cm thick) and fine sandstone (up to 20 cm thick) that probably resulted from intermittent sediment gravity flows (Gehling et al. 2011). The mudstones show signs of small-scale fluidization, with the siltstones or sandstones occasionally loading into the underlying mudstones, resulting in flame structures. The mudstones do not appear to be bioturbated (especially where the soft-bodied fossils occur) and, in combination with the presence of sedimentary pyrite (McKirdy et al. 2011) and pyritized soft tissues (Paterson et al. 2011), indicate anoxia below the sediment–water interface based on comparisons with Cambrian Burgess Shale-type deposits (Gabbott et al. 2004; Gaines & Droser 2005, 2010; Gaines et al. 2012a,b; Gaines 2014). Geochemical studies also indicate anoxic conditions within the sediment (Hall et al. 2011; McKirdy et al. 2011), perhaps owing to the sealing of the substrate by microbial mats (although there is no unequivocal physical evidence of them), thus generating a sharp redox boundary. If microbial mats were responsible for a permeability barrier at the sediment–water interface, this may provide a taphonomic alternative to the early sealing of sediments by pervasive carbonate cements that is typical of Burgess Shale-type preservation sensu stricto (Gaines et al. 2012b; Gaines 2014); interestingly, there are claims for microbial mats in the Sirius Passet Lagerstätte (Mángano et al. 2012). Moreover, EBS studies (McKirdy et al. 2011; Hall et al. 2011) suggested that the benthos and water column were well oxygenated, which is supported (in part) by the low organic carbon content in the mudstones, in addition to redox-sensitive trace element ratios (but see Gaines (2014, p. 132) regarding their reliability as redox proxies). However, low total organic carbon values (<1%) can also be explained by low primary productivity and/or high sedimentation rates diluting the organic matter. Notwithstanding, an oxic water column is further suggested by a diverse and abundant nektobenthic–pelagic fauna, but the question of fully aerobic versus dysaerobic–anaerobic conditions on the seafloor requires further investigation (discussed below).

The EBS seems to have been rapidly deposited in a relatively nearshore setting adjacent to an active tectonic margin that generated continual syndepositional faulting and slumping. The Konservat-Lagerstätte interval appears to form part of a localized, deeper-water micro-basin succession on the inner shelf that was subject to fluctuating oxygen levels, at least in the bottom waters (Gehling et al. 2011). This depositional setting is in stark contrast to the majority of other Cambrian Konservat-Lagerstätten, specifically Burgess Shale-type deposits that formed in outer shelf environments, either near or immediately adjacent to the seaward margins of expansive carbonate platforms (e.g. Burgess Shale), or offshore of broad clastic shelves (e.g. Chengjiang) (Gaines 2014).

The Emu Bay Shale biota: diversity and palaeobiogeographical affinities

Of the 50+ species now known from the EBS, around 30% possess biomineralized structures, the remainder being entirely soft-bodied. However, in terms of the relative abundance of specimens, biomineralized taxa prevail because of the numerical dominance of the trilobite Estaingia bilobata (up to 80% of individuals on any given bedding surface).

As in Cambrian Burgess Shale-type biotas (Caron & Jackson 2008; Caron et al. 2014; Zhao et al. 2014), species diversity and abundance in the EBS are dominated by panarthropods, which comprise 28 recorded species to date, with several yet to be described. The survey of the biota below is accordingly focused on arthropods, with taxonomic groups drawing on the classification of Legg et al. (2013). Other major groups represented include sponges, molluscs, brachiopods, cycloneuralian worms and a single species of annelid. Some groups of debated affinity that are known from other Cambrian Burgess Shale-type deposits are represented by single species in the EBS, including chancelloriids, the probably deuterostome ‘cambroernids’ (incorporating the rotadiscids), and the vetulicolians (see Box 1; Fig. 2).

Box 1. Nesonektris and the affinities of vetulicolians

Vetulicolians are Cambrian animals known from 15 named species that occur in the Chengjiang and Guanshan biotas of China, Sirius Passet and the Burgess Shale. An EBS vetulicolian, Nesonektris aldridgei García-Bellido et al. 2014, demonstrated that their distribution extended to East Gondwana. Vetulicolians were originally interpreted as bivalved arthropods because their bipartite body is divided into an anterior part that has some similarities to a carapace and a posterior part composed of segments separated by soft intersegmental regions. Arthropod affinities were challenged by the absence of limbs and by the discovery of features that were more consistent with alternative (specifically deuterostome) affinities. Based especially on a series of openings in the anterior part of the body interpreted as gill slits (Shu et al. 2010), the deuterostome hypothesis has generally found favour (Aldridge et al. 2007; Vinther et al. 2011; Ou et al. 2012; Smith 2012). Nonetheless, the question of whether vetulicolians belong to the deuterostome stem-group or are more closely related to one of the extant deuterostome subgroups (thus making them crown-group Deuterostomia) remains unclear. The bipartite division of the body had been argued to suggest affinities to tunicates (Lacalli 2002), implying membership of Vetulicolia within Chordata. This systematic position would predict the presence of a notochord in vetulicolians, and indeed an axial rod that runs through the posterior body part of Nesonektris displays some morphological and preservational features consistent with its identity as a notochord. In particular, specimens show the rod fragmenting into sections, similar to the early decay stages of the notochord in Amphioxus and jawless vertebrates (Sansom et al. 2013). In addition to their bipartite bodies, vetulicolians and tunicates share a thick cuticle, a terminally positioned mouth, and restriction of the notochord to the segmented posterior part of the body.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

(a) Reconstruction of Nesonektris aldridgei; by Katrina Kenny. (b) Axial rod structure of N. aldridgei (SAM P46336a) interpreted as a putative notochord, with arrows showing offset blocks. (c) Phylogenetic position of vetulicolians within Deuterostomia, based on the analysis by García-Bellido et al. (2014); parsimony-bootstrap values (above branches) and Bremer support (below) are shown for analyses including/excluding the non-vetulicolian fossil taxa.

Arthropods

Trilobites

Five species have been identified in the EBS (Jell in Bengtson et al. 1990; Paterson & Jago 2006), two of which are abundant (Estaingia bilobata and Redlichia takooensis: Fig. 3a) whereas the remaining three are very rare (Balcoracania dailyi, Holyoakia simpsoni and Megapharanaspis nedini). The trilobites suggest strong biogeographical connections with South China and Antarctica; as outlined below, many of the non-biomineralized species in the EBS have their closest relatives in the Chengjiang biota and amplify the signal for affinities to South China. Estaingia is restricted to East Gondwana (Australia and Antarctica) and South China (Dai & Zhang 2012). Redlichia takooensis, by far the largest trilobite in the biota (articulated specimens up to 25 cm long), was originally described from South China. Holyoakia is otherwise known from the type species in the Central Transantarctic Mountains (Palmer & Rowell 1995). Balcoracania was originally documented from sites in South Australia, but subsequently found in Antarctica (Palmer & Rowell 1995). Balcoracania dailyi is noteworthy for having the largest number of thoracic segments (103) known from any trilobite anywhere in the world (Paterson & Edgecombe 2006).

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Emu Bay Shale arthropods. (a) Redlichia takooensis (left, SAM P52235) and Estaingia bilobata (right, SAM P52236). (b) Kangacaris zhangi (SAM P45179b). (c) Australimicola spriggi (SAM P44482a). (d) New cheliceriform arthropod (SAM P45427). (e) Squamacula buckorum (SAM P15347a). (f) Tanglangia rangatanga (SAM P46331a, mirrored). (g) Oestokerkus megacholix (SAM P43631a, mirrored). (h) Isoxys communis (SAM P47179a). (i) Tuzoia australis (SAM P47994a). (j, k) Anomalocaris cf. canadensis (SAM P51398a); (j) pair of frontal appendages and oral cone; (k) detail of ventral spine. Scale bars: (a–f) 5 mm; (g–j) 10 mm; (k) 3 mm. All photos in Figures 2–6 taken with Canon EOS 50D, under natural or tungsten light from NE and NW at low angle. Illustrations composed and processed, for fine-tune light intensity across figures, with Adobe Photoshop CS3.

Other lamellipedian arthropods

The names Lamellipedia and Artiopoda refer to trilobites and their (mostly non-biomineralized) relatives. Emucaris fava and Kangacaris zhangi (Fig. 3b), both blind species, belong to the family Emucarididae, originally known only from the EBS (Paterson et al. 2010). The only other record of the family is a species from Chengjiang assigned to Kangacaris (Zhang et al. 2012). Another blind arthropod in the EBS, Australimicola spriggi (Fig. 3c), was originally classified in a lamellipedian group named Conciliterga, with which it shares its style of hypostome attachment (Paterson et al. 2012), but other phylogenetic analyses have grouped it with Cheloniellida, known from various species in the Ordovician, Silurian and Devonian (Stein et al. 2013).

Cheliceriform and ‘great appendage’ arthropods

A common EBS arthropod (Fig. 3d), the description of which is currently pending publication, has 11 trunk segments, a large paddle-shaped telson and massive gnathobases on its cephalic appendages, suggesting a relationship to Sanctacaris, Utahcaris and probably also Sidneyia (Conway Morris & Robison 1988; Legg 2014). Comparisons with Sidneyia have also been made in the case of another EBS arthropod, Squamacula buckorum (Fig. 3e; Paterson et al. 2012; Stein et al. 2013). Squamacula is otherwise recorded only in Chengjiang (Zhang et al. 2004), providing one of numerous biogeographical links between the EBS and South China.

Oestokerkus megacholix (Fig. 3g) belongs to the same family as the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang ‘great appendage’ arthropods Leanchoilia and Alalcomenaeus (Edgecombe et al. 2011). With these other leanchoiliids, it shares a long flagellum on each of three spine-bearing articles of the great appendage (the first head appendage). Another ‘great appendage’ arthropod, Tanglangia rangatanga (Fig. 3f), is the second known species of this genus, otherwise recorded only from Chengjiang. The Australian and Chinese species share a quadrate cephalic shield, a narrow trunk of 13 segments, and a styliform telson that is as long as the trunk (Paterson et al. 2015).

Bivalved stem-group arthropods

The genera Isoxys and Tuzoia, both of which have a ‘bivalved’ carapace, are known from many lower and middle Cambrian Konservat-Lagerstätten, and each is represented in the EBS by two species (García-Bellido et al. 2009). The common EBS species, I. communis (Fig. 3h), includes specimens preserving the eyes, the anteriormost cephalic appendage, a series of phosphatized midgut glands, and the trunk segments bearing biramous appendages extending behind the carapace. A second species of Isoxys, I. glaessneri, is smaller, with smooth valves and short cardinal spines. Tuzoia is characterized by coarse polygonal ornament, a spiniferous lateral ridge on each carapace valve, and marginal spines in stereotypical positions. The genus is mostly known from empty carapaces in all its occurrences worldwide (Vannier et al. 2007), and the EBS species Tuzoia australis (Fig. 3i) and a large unnamed form (Tuzoia sp.) are typical in this respect. Only a few EBS specimens preserve the large stalked eyes projecting outside the carapace margin.

Radiodontans

Anomalocaris is represented by two species in the EBS, distinguished by characters of the spiny armature of their frontal appendages (McHenry & Yates 1993; Nedin 1995; Daley et al. 2013). Anomalocaris briggsi is the more abundant, with the less common frontal appendage assigned to Anomalocaris cf. canadensis. A few Anomalocaris oral cones are known from the EBS, one of them being associated with the frontal appendages of A. cf. canadensis (Fig. 3j and k). Other body parts of Anomalocaris, including segmental flaps and setal blades that in the Burgess Shale and at Chengjiang are known to attach to the body flaps, cannot as yet be definitively assigned to one of the two species. The EBS material is interesting for revealing more abundant disarticulated body parts (especially flaps) than at other sites with radiodontans and for the pyritization of these recalcitrant tissues exposing some details not known from elsewhere. Notable examples of this are a series of bars within the strengthening rays on the body flaps, and the lenses of the compound eye (see Box 2; Fig. 4c and d). Coprolites in the EBS that contain skeletal hash of trilobites (including Redlichia and Estaingia), in addition to injuries in Redlichia (Conway Morris & Jenkins 1985), were attributed to predation by Anomalocaris (Nedin 1999), but durophagy is unlikely for A. briggsi at least; the slender spines on its frontal appendages most probably functioned as a feeding net (Daley et al. 2013).

Box 2. Acute vision in the early Cambrian

The early fossil record of arthropod vision is dominated by trilobites, in which the lens arrangements of holochroal compound eyes have long been investigated, largely because the visual surface is (like the exoskeleton itself) mineralized with calcium carbonate. In contrast, the eyes of non-biomineralized arthropods in Cambrian Burgess Shale-type deposits are mostly known from their outlines only, the visual surface typically being preserved as carbon films that do not reveal details of the ommatidial lenses. Two EBS arthropods differ from this picture because the visual surfaces of their compound eyes were replicated by authigenic mineralization in early diagenesis (the cuticle being replicated by either pyrite or calcium phosphate), thus recording the arrangements of lenses in higher fidelity than in typical Burgess Shale-type preservation. One of these eyes is known from several specimens of an arthropod of uncertain affinities (the eyes are all isolated, detached from the head and other body parts) (Lee et al. 2011). The eyes are mostly 7–9 mm across their long axis. The visual surface displays more than 3000 lenses arranged with the dense hexagonal packing of living arthropod eyes. This tally vastly exceeds the lens numbers of known Cambrian trilobites. Just as noteworthy as their number is a gradient in the diameter of lenses from the edges of the eye to the centre: these eyes have a specialized zone of enlarged central lenses. In living arthropods this region is called a ‘bright zone’, a zone of increased visual acuity, and is found in predatory forms such as robberflies. Together with calculations for the ‘eye parameter’ (which relates the size and arrangement of ommatidia to light levels), the EBS eyes suggest a predator capable of acute vision in dim light.

Other large (2–3 cm) isolated compound eyes in the EBS can be assigned to Anomalocaris based on their similarity to the stalked eyes known in articulated material of that genus in the Burgess Shale and at Chengjiang (Paterson et al. 2011). The EBS Anomalocaris eyes are remarkable for the number of lenses in the visual surface, exceeding 16000 on the exposed surface (and presumably a large number more on the unexposed surface). This is near the upper limit for arthropods throughout their geological history (including extant species). The size of the visual field and number and arrangement of lenses are all consistent with acute vision in Anomalocaris, as would be expected given other morphological indications for predatory habits in highly motile animals.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

(a, b) Compound eyes of an unknown arthropod showing large central ommatidial lenses forming a light-sensitive bright zone or fovea (f), and a sclerotized pedestal (p); (a) SAM P43629a; (b) SAM P43687. (c, d) Compound eye of Anomalocaris; (c) part (SAM P45920a), showing visual surface (vs) and eye stalk (es), with the boundary indicated by white arrows; us, undetermined structure; (d) counterpart (SAM P45920b) showing details of ommatidial lenses.

Lobopodians

A single specimen of an armoured lobopodian has been discovered in the EBS (García-Bellido et al. 2013a). It is incomplete, but preserves five pairs of long, slender, annulated lobopods that bear setiform spines along the margins, followed by two pairs of shorter lobopods that terminate in a robust claw (Fig. 5a and b). By comparison with luolishaniid lobopodians, the slender appendages are the anterior batch. The trunk of the EBS lobopodian bears three long, robust spines arranged across the dorsal side of each body segment. These characters are shared with the Chinese early Cambrian luolishaniids Luolishania (Chengjiang biota) and Collinsium (Xiaoshiba biota); the latter strengthens the hypothesis that these armoured lobopodians are stem-group onychophorans (Yang et al. 2015).

Fig. 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 5.

(a, b) Luolishaniid lobopodian; (a) part (SAM P14848a); (b) counterpart showing detail of claw (SAM P14848b). (c) Myoscolex ateles (SAM P47027a). (d) Wronascolex antiquus (SAM P45224a). (e) Polychaete annelid (SAM P46333a). Scale bars: (a, c, e) 5 mm; (b) 500 µm; (d) 20 mm.

Myoscolex

Myoscolex ateles (Fig. 5c) represents a genus known only from the EBS. It was originally interpreted as an annelid (Glaessner 1979) based on its segmented body. New material, which included the first example of phosphatized muscle tissue then known from the Cambrian, prompted a reinterpretation as a relative of the Burgess Shale stem-group arthropod Opabinia (Briggs & Nedin 1997). This drew on structures identified as a proboscis, three possible eyes, and flaps associated with the body segments. However, a subsequent study reasserted an annelid identity (Dzik 2004), emphasizing rod-shaped phosphatized structures on the lateral and ventral parts of each body segment that were interpreted as chaetae. New specimens under study are suggestive of a position on the stem of Euarthropoda.

Palaeoscolecids (Cycloneuralia)

Palaeoscolecids are a group of worms with a robust, annulated cuticle that bears rows of ornamented sclerites. They are known from many Cambrian Konservat-Lagerstätten, either as whole-body compression fossils or as secondarily phosphatized (Orsten-type) microfossils. The structure of the protrusible proboscis is critical to recognizing affinities to Cycloneuralia, the extant clade or grade of moulting worms that includes priapulids, nematodes and nematomorphs (Wills et al. 2012). A large palaeoscolecid in the EBS was originally named Palaeoscolex antiquus by Glaessner (1979), but the combined information from soft anatomy and ornament of the sclerites prompted reclassification as Wronascolex, a genus originally described from Siberia (García-Bellido et al. 2013b). Specimens of W. antiquus (Fig. 5d) preserve the scalids (teeth) on the proboscis, the gut and the hooks at the posterior end of the body; the largest specimen reaches a length of 37 cm. A second, rare species in the EBS, Wronascolex iacoborum, is distinguished by differences in the body annulation and the density of sclerites on the annulations.

Spiralians (‘lophotrochozoans’)

Representatives of this group are rare in the EBS. Members include: linguliformean brachiopods, such as eoobolids and botsfordiids (Fig. 6a), the latter exemplified by a species attributed to Diandongia from Chengjiang (Zhang et al. 2003, 2008); a polychaete annelid with possible affinities to Burgessochaeta (Fig. 5e; Eibye-Jacobsen 2004); and hyolith molluscs (Fig. 6b).

Fig. 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 6.

(a) Botsfordiid brachiopod (SAM P44242a). (b) Ribbed hyolith mollusc (SAM P14805a). (c) Vetustovermis planus (SAM P46982b). (d) Chancelloriid (SAM P51310a). (e) Leptomitid sponge (SAM P45545a). (f) Hamptoniid sponge (SAM P45915). (g) Rotadiscid (SAM P45196). (h) ‘Petalloid’ (SAM P45583). Scale bars: (a) 3 mm; (b, f–h) 5 mm; (c–e) 10 mm.

Vetustovermis planus (Fig. 6c) was described from a single EBS specimen, an elongate oval body 75 mm long, originally interpreted as an annelid (Glaessner 1979). Better preserved specimens from Chengjiang, assigned to the same species, revealed a head with eyes and a pair of tentacles, and showed that the supposed body segments are transverse bars reinterpreted as gills (Chen et al. 2005). Recent discussion has focused on the likely synonymy between Vetustovermis and the Burgess Shale Nectocaris, and the debate over the possible relationship of nectocaridids to Mollusca (see Smith 2013, and references therein).

Sponges

The Porifera so far found in the EBS are all demosponges. The assemblage is dominated by leptomitids (Fig. 6e), some more than 15 cm long, accompanied by a few specimens of hamptoniids (Fig. 6f) and choiids. These families are present in many other Cambrian Lagerstätten (Carrera & Botting 2008; Wu et al. 2014), and thus do not provide significant palaeobiogeographical information at a high taxonomic level.

Problematica

Some controversial animals documented from other Cambrian Konservat-Lagerstätten also occur in the EBS, but are typically very rare, known only from a few specimens. These include chancelloriids, represented by a species possibly belonging to Chancelloria (Bengtson & Collins 2015; Fig. 6d), and rotadiscids, with a close affinity to Pararotadiscus (Zhu et al. 2002; Fig. 6g); Bengtson & Collins (2015) and Caron et al. (2010) have discussed affinities of chancelloriids and rotadiscids, respectively. However, the EBS has revealed an unusual taxon (informally referred to as ‘petalloid’; Fig. 6h) that is relatively common and unlike anything found in other Burgess Shale-type biotas. Its bract-like elements are superficially similar to those of Dinomischus (Conway Morris 1977; Chen 2004), but the EBS taxon lacks a calyx and stem.

Palaeoecology

The animal community entombed within the EBS Konservat-Lagerstätte appears to have an ecological structure similar to that of typical Burgess Shale-type biotas (e.g. Caron & Jackson 2008; Peel & Ineson 2011; Zhao et al. 2014), represented by an autochthonous (in situ) assemblage of benthic inhabitants, plus transported individuals of other benthic, nektic and pelagic species (discussed further below). The benthos is dominated by the trilobite Estaingia bilobata, occurring in numbers of up to 300 individuals per square metre (see density in Fig. 3j), including in situ moult ensembles. The other relatively abundant benthic taxa include (to a much lesser extent) the trilobite Redlichia takooensis, the palaeoscolecid Wronascolex antiquus and sponges, with the remainder being very rare (e.g. several artiopodan arthropods, lobopodians, polychaetes, brachiopods, hyoliths and chancelloriids; see Box 3). The other prevalent faunal elements of the EBS are represented by taxa that had probable pelagic, nektic or nektobenthic life modes, suggestive of a well-oxygenated water column. Some of the more common forms include a variety of arthropods, especially ‘bivalved’ taxa such as Isoxys and Tuzoia (García-Bellido et al. 2009; see also Vannier et al. 2007, 2009), Anomalocaris (Paterson et al. 2011; Daley et al. 2013), and, to a lesser extent, cheliceriform and ‘great appendage’ arthropods (Edgecombe et al. 2011; Paterson et al. 2015), and animals such as Myoscolex and the vetulicolian Nesonektris (Briggs & Nedin 1997; García-Bellido et al. 2014).

Box 3. Outstanding questions

Certain taxonomic groups that are usually represented in Cambrian Burgess Shale-type biotas are either very scarce in the EBS (e.g. annelids, lobopodians) or wholly lacking (e.g. echinoderms). Teasing out whether these rare occurrences or absences are biogeographically, environmentally, ecologically and/or taphonomically controlled (e.g. annelids are unknown from Chengjiang and are represented in the Guanshan biota by a single specimen, but are well represented in the Burgess Shale and Sirius Passet biotas; Parry et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2015) remains an important challenge. One of the biggest questions surrounding the EBS Konservat-Lagerstätte is how the unusual combination of a nearshore palaeoenvironmental setting and the variety of preservational modes seen in EBS fossils, such as the 3D relief of soft-bodied taxa and the range of early diagenetic mineralization of labile and recalcitrant tissues, relates to typical Burgess Shale-type deposits, if at all (Gaines 2014). This will require detailed microstratigraphic, sedimentological and geochemical analyses, including drill core samples.

The very limited diversity of autochthonous (in situ) benthic inhabitants and lack of bioturbation in the EBS, coupled with the dominance of Estaingia bilobata, may be clues in deciphering the conditions on the seafloor. A similar ecological abundance of a single trilobite species has been well documented from the Cambrian Wheeler Formation of Utah (Gaines & Droser 2003, 2005, 2010). Here, Elrathia kingii occurs in densities of up to 500 individuals per square metre and is interpreted as being an inhabitant of the exaerobic zone, a transitional area of the seafloor between dysoxic and truly anoxic bottom waters. Estaingia from the EBS may have occupied the same ecological niche. Low-oxygen conditions in the bottom waters may also explain the paucity of many other motile benthic organisms, and the extreme rarity or total absence of most fixosessile taxa (e.g. brachiopods and echinoderms, respectively); although the latter could also be due to the overall high, often turbid sedimentation rates evident in the EBS. The rarer motile benthic taxa most probably represent individuals that were either transported from their living environment (e.g. the trilobite Balcoracania dailyi, which typically inhabits shallow water, marginal marine settings; Paterson et al. 2007) or vagrants that lived near the boundary of the exaerobic zone and were more tolerant of the harsh low-oxygen conditions. The more common palaeoscolecids (particularly W. antiquus) and leptomitids may have also been dysaerobic specialists, as their modern phylogenetic and ecological analogues (e.g. priapulids and demosponges, respectively) are known to live under similar oxygen conditions (Oeschger et al. 1992; Levin 2003; Mills et al. 2014; and references therein). However, the ubiquitous occurrence of Cambrian palaeoscolecids (especially Wronascolex; García-Bellido et al. 2013b) and demosponges (Carrera & Botting 2008) in various palaeoenvironmental settings worldwide, in addition to the supposed burrowing habit of palaeoscolecids (Huang et al. 2014), suggests that perhaps the EBS forms occupied the periphery of the exaerobic zone where the sediment–water interface was more oxygenated and were subsequently transported a short distance into an optimal preservational setting (Gaines 2014).

Preservation of Emu Bay Shale fossils

Most studies on the taphonomy of EBS fossils have focused on the diagenetic aspects, specifically the early diagenetic mineralization of soft tissues, which is particularly prominent and varied compared with other documented Cambrian Konservat-Lagerstätten (Gaines 2014), but also late-stage diagenetic mineralization in the form of pink to white fibrous calcite that can replicate fossils (Nedin 1997). Examples of the former process include phosphatization of labile tissues such as muscle (Briggs & Nedin 1997; Nedin 1997) and gut structures (García-Bellido et al. 2009, 2013b; Edgecombe et al. 2011; Paterson et al. 2012), but also recalcitrant extracellular cuticle (Lee et al. 2011; Paterson et al. 2011); the last can also be pyritized (see Box 2).

Although there is still much work to be done in understanding these modes of preservation during diagenesis, various biostratinomic characteristics also require further investigation (Box 3). The most conspicuous of these is the prevalence of complete specimens of the trilobite Estaingia preserved dorsum-down throughout the Konservat-Lagerstätte interval; as confirmed by stratigraphic ‘way-up’ evidence in the sections; for example, load structures (see Gehling et al. 2011). Preliminary data indicate that on average, c. 75% of individuals within the mudstone horizons are preserved in this orientation. Specimens of Redlichia takooensis are also typically oriented in this manner. A likely explanation for this phenomenon (see Paterson et al. 2007) is that inversion resulted from decay gases building up beneath carcasses, causing them to become buoyant and eventually overturn (Babcock & Chang 1997). This scenario is supported by the exaerobic zone hypothesis (discussed above), whereby inhabitants could have asphyxiated en masse during an intermittent landward shift of the oxycline, leaving them to decay on the substrate in the absence of benthic scavengers or bioturbators; as mentioned above, there is no clear evidence of bioturbation in the EBS Konservat-Lagerstätte interval. Mass asphyxiation events owing to a fluctuating oxycline, which would have also affected parts of the water column, may also explain the abundance of free-swimming taxa within the EBS mudstones, especially Isoxys communis, the most common soft-bodied species in the EBS. Such forms are frequently preserved in either dorso-ventral or lateral aspect (with the largest and flattest surface area oriented parallel to bedding), suggestive of gravitational settling (see Zhang & Hou 2007), as opposed to turbid burial, which can result in oblique orientations (Caron & Jackson 2006; Gabbott et al. 2008; Gaines 2014). In the case of the free-swimming arthropods, the abundance and orientation of their remains may also be a consequence of moulting, as indicated by the common occurrence of ‘bivalved’ carapaces without trunks, and isolated elements (especially frontal appendages and body flaps) of Anomalocaris.

The EBS mudstones containing trilobites, especially those horizons comprising unequivocal in situ moult ensembles of Estaingia and Redlichia, and other free-swimming forms that are commonly preserved in prone, supine or lateral positions seem to indicate short periods of quiescent substrate conditions (affected by a fluctuating oxycline) prior to frequent burial events. The often poor fidelity or partial or total absence of certain anatomical structures (e.g. the appendages of some artiopodans; Paterson et al. 2010, 2012) may also relate to decay rate versus pre-burial residence time on the seafloor (Zhao et al. 2009; O’Brien et al. 2014), but the relationships between preservational fidelity, original histology and host sediment types (including mineralogy) should also be considered (Gaines et al. 2012b; Wilson & Butterfield 2014). However, several interbedded siltstone and fine sandstone layers often entomb complete trilobites and vetulicolians in chaotic orientations, again contrasting with the dorso-ventral or lateral orientations of these animals in mudstones, respectively; for example, the preservation styles of EBS vetulicolians in siltstones (García-Bellido et al. 2014, fig. 1A–F) compared with those in mudstones (García-Bellido et al. 2014, fig. 4C). This suggests that intermittent sediment gravity flows not only swept up members of the benthos, but captured free-swimming taxa as well, with only the biomineralized or heavily sclerotized forms preserving in these coarser sediments.

Understanding the preservational modes of soft-bodied fossils in the EBS is hindered by the extensive surficial weathering, as is the case in deposits such as those of Chengjiang (Gabbott et al. 2004; Forchielli et al. 2014). This was one of the reasons why Gaines (2014) excluded the EBS as a Burgess Shale-type deposit, which is defined by the occurrence of soft-bodied fossils preserved as 2D, primary carbonaceous remains. This strict definition of ‘carbonaceous compression’ fossils means that the EBS fails on both counts, as (1) the fossils show no signs of carbon films and (2) recalcitrant tissues in many soft-bodied taxa (such as Isoxys, Tuzoia, non-trilobite artiopodans and even Anomalocaris frontal appendages) have some degree of three-dimensionality (e.g. Fig. 3b, f and i). Whereas the absence of carbonaceous remains may simply be the result of weathering, the 3D nature of soft-bodied fossils within the EBS mudstones, excluding specific anatomical structures replicated by authigenic minerals (e.g. mid-gut glands), implies a different preservational mode from that of Burgess Shale-type deposits. This may be due, in part, to the presence of a silt fraction within the EBS mudstones that is otherwise lacking in Burgess Shale-type clay-rich beds containing 2D carbonaceous compression fossils (Gaines et al. 2012b).

Summary

The Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte provides critical information on the evolution, biogeography and ecology of Cambrian faunas from an East Gondwanan perspective. Overall, the EBS community appears to have been living in and under a well-oxygenated water column (within the photic zone) that was often subjected to a fluctuating oxycline. This resulted in the development of an exaerobic zone on the seafloor (below storm wave base) that was inhabited by dysaerobic specialists, but also acted as a preservational trap for many other benthic, nektobenthic and pelagic taxa that were transported into or settled down in this setting. Although the EBS contains a typical Burgess Shale-type biota, a unique combination of preservational modes in a nearshore setting sets it apart from other Burgess Shale-type deposits. It thus holds potential for reshaping our understanding of the exceptional preservation of Cambrian soft-bodied fossils.

Acknowledgements and Funding

Emu Bay Shale research has been supported by grants from the Australian Research Council (LP0774959, DP120104251,+ FT120100770, FT130101329), Spanish Research Council (CGL2009-07073, CGL2013-48877-P) and National Geographic Society Research & Exploration (#8991-11), with additional financial assistance from Beach Energy Ltd and the South Australian Museum. SeaLink has provided logistical support. We are grateful to the Buck family for access to the field area. We thank our friends and colleagues (in alphabetical order) R. Atkinson, M. Binnie, G. Brock, A. Camens, A. Daley, R. Gaines, M. Gemmell, J. Holmes, K. Kenny, P. Kruse, J. Laurie, X. Ma, B. McHenry, M. Mills, L. Reid, D. Rice, N. Schroeder, E. Thomson and members of the South Australian Museum Waterhouse Club for assistance in the field and laboratory, as well as providing fruitful discussions over the years. Thanks go to three anonymous referees for providing helpful reviews of the paper, and to R. Gaines for commenting on an earlier draft.

  • © 2016 The Author(s)

References

  1. ↵
    1. Aldridge R.J.,
    2. Hou X.,
    3. Siveter D.J.,
    4. Siveter D.J.,
    5. Gabbott S.E.
    2007. The systematics and phylogenetic relationships of vetulicolians. Palaeontology, 50, 131–168.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Babcock L.E.,
    2. Chang W.
    1997. Comparative taphonomy of two nonmineralized arthropods: Naraoia (Nektaspida; early Cambrian, Chengjiang Biota, China) and Limulus (Xiphosurida; Holocene, Atlantic Ocean). Bulletin of National Museum of Natural Science, 10, 233–250.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Bengtson S.,
    2. Collins D.
    2015. Chancelloriids of the Cambrian Burgess Shale. Palaeontologia Electronica, 18.1.6A, 1–67.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Bengtson S.,
    2. Conway Morris S.,
    3. Cooper B.J.,
    4. Jell P.A.,
    5. Runnegar B.N.
    1990. Early Cambrian fossils from South Australia. Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, 9.
  5. ↵
    1. Briggs D.E.G.,
    2. Nedin C.
    1997. The taphonomy and affinities of the problematic fossil Myoscolex from the lower Cambrian Emu Bay Shale of South Australia. Journal of Paleontology, 71, 22–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  6. ↵
    1. Brock G.A.,
    2. Engelbretsen M.J.,
    3. et al
    . 2000. Palaeobiogeographic affinities of Australian Cambrian faunas. In: Wright A.J., Young G.C., Talent J.A., Laurie J.R. (eds) Palaeobiogeography of Australasian Floras and Faunas. Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, 23, 1–61.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Caron J.-B.,
    2. Jackson D.A.
    2006. Taphonomy of the Greater Phyllopod Bed community, Burgess Shale. Palaios, 21, 451–465.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Caron J.-B.,
    2. Jackson D.A.
    2008. Paleoecology of the Greater Phyllopod Bed community, Burgess Shale. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 258, 222–256.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Caron J.-B.,
    2. Conway Morris S.,
    3. Shu D.
    2010. Tentaculate fossils from the Cambrian of Canada (British Columbia) and China (Yunnan) interpreted as primitive deuterostomes. PLoS ONE, 5, e9586.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Caron J.-B.,
    2. Gaines R.R.,
    3. Aria C.,
    4. Mángano M.G.,
    5. Streng M.
    2014. A new phyllopod bed-like assemblage from the Burgess Shale of the Canadian Rockies. Nature Communications, 5, 3210.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Carrera M.G.,
    2. Botting J.P.
    2008. Evolutionary history of Cambrian spiculate sponges: Implications for the Cambrian Evolutionary Fauna. Palaios, 23, 124–138.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Chen J.
    2004. The Dawn of Animal World. Jiang Science and Technology Press, Nanjing.
  13. ↵
    1. Chen J.,
    2. Huang D.,
    3. Bottjer D.J.
    2005. An Early Cambrian problematic fossil: Vetustovermis and its possible affinities. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 272, 2003–2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Conway Morris S.
    1977. A new entoproct-like organism from the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. Palaeontology, 20, 833–845.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Conway Morris S.,
    2. Jenkins R.J.F.
    1985. Healed injuries in Early Cambrian trilobites from South Australia. Alcheringa, 9, 167–177.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Conway Morris S.,
    2. Robison R.A.
    1988. More soft-bodied animals and algae from the Middle Cambrian of Utah and British Columbia. University of Kansas, Paleontological Contributions, 122.
  17. ↵
    1. Dai T.,
    2. Zhang X.
    2012. Ontogeny of the trilobite Estaingia sinensis (Chang) from the lower Cambrian of South China. Bulletin of Geosciences, 87, 151–158.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Daily B.,
    2. Moore P.S.,
    3. Rust B.R.
    1980. Terrestrial–marine transition in the Cambrian rocks of Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Sedimentology, 27, 379–399.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Daley A.C.,
    2. Paterson J.R.,
    3. Edgecombe G.D.,
    4. García-Bellido D.C.,
    5. Jago J.B.
    2013. New anatomical information on Anomalocaris from the Cambrian Emu Bay Shale of South Australia and a reassessment of its inferred predatory habits. Palaeontology, 56, 971–990.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Dzik J.
    2004. Anatomy and relationships of the Early Cambrian worm Myoscolex. Zoologica Scripta, 33, 57–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Edgecombe G.D.,
    2. García-Bellido D.C.,
    3. Paterson J.R.
    2011. A new leanchoiliid megacheiran arthropod from the lower Cambrian Emu Bay Shale, South Australia. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 56, 385–400.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    1. Eibye-Jacobsen D.
    2004. A reevaluation of Wiwaxia and the polychaetes of the Burgess Shale. Lethaia, 37, 317–335.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Forchielli A.,
    2. Steiner M.,
    3. Kasbohm J.,
    4. Hu S.,
    5. Keupp H.
    2014. Taphonomic traits of clay-hosted early Cambrian Burgess Shale-type fossil Lagerstätten in South China. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 398, 59–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Gabbott S.E.,
    2. Hou X.,
    3. Norry M.J.,
    4. Siveter D.J.
    2004. Preservation of Early Cambrian animals of the Chengjiang biota. Geology, 32, 901–904.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Gabbott S.E.,
    2. Zalasiewicz J.,
    3. Collins D.
    2008. Sedimentation of the Phyllopod Bed within the Cambrian Burgess Shale Formation of British Columbia. Journal of the Geological Society, London, 165, 307–318, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/0016-76492007-023.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Gaines R.R.
    2014. Burgess Shale-type preservation and its distribution in space and time. In: Laflamme M., Schiffbauer J.D., Darroch S.A.F. (eds) Reading and Writing of the Fossil Record: Preservational Pathways to Exceptional Fossilization. Paleontological Society Papers, 20, 123–146.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Gaines R.R.,
    2. Droser M.L.
    2003. Paleoecology of the familiar trilobite Elrathia kingii: An early exaerobic zone inhabitant. Geology, 31, 941–944.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Gaines R.R.,
    2. Droser M.L.
    2005. New approaches to understanding the mechanics of Burgess Shale-type deposits: From the micron scale to the global picture. Sedimentary Record, 3, 4–8.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Gaines R.R.,
    2. Droser M.L.
    2010. The paleoredox setting of Burgess Shale-type deposits. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 297, 649–661.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. Gaines R.R.,
    2. Briggs D.E.G.,
    3. Zhao Y.
    2008. Cambrian Burgess Shale-type deposits share a common mode of fossilization. Geology, 36, 755–758.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Gaines R.R.,
    2. Droser M.L.,
    3. et al
    . 2012a. Burgess Shale-type biotas were not entirely burrowed away. Geology, 40, 283–286.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Gaines R.R.,
    2. Hammarlund E.U.,
    3. et al
    . 2012b. Mechanism for Burgess Shale-type preservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 109, 5180–5184.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. García-Bellido D.C.,
    2. Paterson J.R.,
    3. Edgecombe G.D.,
    4. Jago J.B.,
    5. Gehling J.G.,
    6. Lee M.S.Y.
    2009. The bivalved arthropods Isoxys and Tuzoia with soft-part preservation from the lower Cambrian Emu Bay Shale Lagerstätte (Kangaroo Island, Australia). Palaeontology, 52, 1221–1241.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. García-Bellido D.C.,
    2. Edgecombe G.D.,
    3. Paterson J.R.,
    4. Ma X.
    2013a. A “Collins’ monster”-type lobopodian from the Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte (Cambrian), South Australia. Alcheringa, 37, 474–478.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    1. García-Bellido D.C.,
    2. Paterson J.R.,
    3. Edgecombe G.D.
    2013b. Cambrian palaeoscolecids (Cycloneuralia) from Gondwana and reappraisal of species assigned to Palaeoscolex. Gondwana Research, 24, 780–795.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    1. García-Bellido D.C.,
    2. Lee M.S.Y.,
    3. Edgecombe G.D.,
    4. Jago J.B.,
    5. Gehling J.G.,
    6. Paterson J.R.
    2014. A new vetulicolian from Australia and its bearing on the chordate affinities of an enigmatic Cambrian group. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 14, 214, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/14/214.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Gehling J.G.,
    2. Jago J.B.,
    3. Paterson J.R.,
    4. García-Bellido D.C.,
    5. Edgecombe G.D.
    2011. The geological context of the Lower Cambrian (Series 2) Emu Bay Shale Lagerstätte and adjacent stratigraphic units, Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 58, 243–257.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Glaessner M.F.
    1979. Lower Cambrian Crustacea and annelid worms from Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Alcheringa, 3, 21–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Hall P.A.,
    2. McKirdy D.M.,
    3. Halverson G.P.,
    4. Jago J.B.,
    5. Gehling J.G.
    2011. Biomarker and isotopic signatures of an early Cambrian Lagerstätte in the Stansbury Basin, South Australia. Organic Geochemistry, 42, 1324–1330.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. Huang D.,
    2. Chen J.,
    3. Zhu M.,
    4. Zhao F.
    2014. The burrow dwelling behavior and locomotion of palaeoscolecidian worms: New fossil evidence from the Cambrian Chengjiang fauna. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 398, 154–164.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    1. Jago J.B.,
    2. Cooper B.J.
    2011. The Emu Bay Shale Lagerstätte: A history of investigations. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 58, 235–241.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. ↵
    1. Jago J.B.,
    2. Zang W.,
    3. Sun X.,
    4. Brock G.A.,
    5. Paterson J.R.,
    6. Skovsted C.B.
    2006. A review of the Cambrian biostratigraphy of South Australia. Palaeoworld, 15, 406–423.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. Jago J.B.,
    2. Gehling J.G.,
    3. Paterson J.R.,
    4. Brock G.A.,
    5. Zang W.
    2012. Cambrian stratigraphy and biostratigraphy of the Flinders Ranges and the north coast of Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Episodes, 35, 247–255.
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Lacalli T.C.
    2002. Vetulicolians—are they deuterostomes? Chordates? BioEssays, 24, 208–211.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. ↵
    1. Landing E.,
    2. Geyer G.,
    3. Brasier M.D.,
    4. Bowring S.A.
    2013. Cambrian Evolutionary Radiation: Context, correlation, and chronostratigraphy—overcoming deficiencies of the first appearance datum (FAD) concept. Earth-Science Reviews, 123, 133–172.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Lee M.S.Y.,
    2. Jago J.B.,
    3. García-Bellido D.C.,
    4. Edgecombe G.D.,
    5. Gehling J.G.,
    6. Paterson J.R.
    2011. Modern optics in exceptionally preserved eyes of Early Cambrian arthropods from Australia. Nature, 474, 631–634.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. ↵
    1. Legg D.A.
    2014. Sanctacaris uncata: the oldest chelicerate (Arthropoda). Naturwissenschaften, 101, 1065–1073.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Legg D.A.,
    2. Sutton M.D.,
    3. Edgecombe G.D.
    2013. Arthropod fossil data increase congruence of morphological and molecular phylogenies. Nature Communications, 4, 2485.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Levin L.A.
    2003. Oxygen Minimum Zone benthos: Adaptation and community response to hypoxia. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 41, 1–45.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  50. ↵
    1. Liu J.,
    2. Ou Q.,
    3. Han J.,
    4. Li J.,
    5. Wu Y.,
    6. Jiao G.,
    7. He T.
    2015. Lower Cambrian polychaete from China sheds light on early annelid evolution. Science of Nature, 102, 1–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. ↵
    1. Mángano M.G.,
    2. Bromley R.G.,
    3. Harper D.A.T.,
    4. Nielsen A.T.,
    5. Smith M.P.,
    6. Vinther J.
    2012. Nonbiomineralized carapaces in Cambrian seafloor landscapes (Sirius Passet, Greenland): opening a new window into early Phanerozoic benthic ecology. Geology, 40, 519–522.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. McHenry B.,
    2. Yates A.
    1993. First report of the enigmatic metazoan Anomalocaris from the Southern Hemisphere and a trilobite with preserved appendages from the Early Cambrian of Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Records of the South Australian Museum, 26, 77–86.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. McKirdy D.M.,
    2. Hall P.A.,
    3. et al
    . 2011. Paleoredox status and thermal alteration of the lower Cambrian (Series 2) Emu Bay Shale Lagerstätte, South Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 58, 259–272.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. ↵
    1. Mills D.B.,
    2. Ward L.M.,
    3. et al
    . 2014. Oxygen requirements of the earliest animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 111, 4168–4172.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Nedin C.
    1995. The Emu Bay Shale, a Lower Cambrian fossil Lagerstätten, Kangaroo Island, South Australia. In: Jell P.A. (ed.) APC94: Papers from the First Australian Palaeontological Convention. Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, 18, 31–40.
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Nedin C.
    1997. Taphonomy of the Early Cambrian Emu Bay Shale Lagerstätte, Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Bulletin of National Museum of Natural Science, 10, 133–141.
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Nedin C.
    1999. Anomalocaris predation on nonmineralized and mineralized trilobites. Geology, 27, 987–990.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. O’Brien L.J.,
    2. Caron J.-B.,
    3. Gaines R.R.
    2014. Taphonomy and depositional setting of the Burgess Shale Tulip Beds, Mount Stephen, British Columbia. Palaios, 29, 309–324.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    1. Oeschger R.,
    2. Peper H.,
    3. Graf G.,
    4. Theede H.
    1992. Metabolic responses of Halicryptus spinulosus (Priapulida) to reduced oxygen levels and anoxia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 162, 229–241.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. Ou Q.,
    2. Conway Morris S.,
    3. et al
    . 2012. Evidence for gill slits and a pharynx in Cambrian vetulicolians: Implications for the early evolution of deuterostomes. BMC Biology, 10, 81, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/10/81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Palmer A.R.,
    2. Rowell A.J.
    1995. Early Cambrian trilobites from the Shackleton Limestone of the Central Transantarctic Mountains. Palaeontological Society Memoir, 45.
  62. ↵
    1. Parry L.,
    2. Tanner A.,
    3. Vinther J.
    2014. The origin of annelids. Palaeontology, 57, 1091–1103.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  63. ↵
    1. Paterson J.R.,
    2. Brock G.A.
    2007. Early Cambrian trilobites from Angorichina, Flinders Ranges, South Australia, with a new assemblage from the Pararaia bunyerooensis Zone. Journal of Paleontology, 81, 116–142.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    1. Paterson J.R.,
    2. Edgecombe G.D.
    2006. The Early Cambrian trilobite family Emuellidae Pocock, 1970: Systematic position and revision of Australian species. Journal of Paleontology, 80, 496–513.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. Paterson J.R.,
    2. Jago J.B.
    2006. New trilobites from the Lower Cambrian Emu Bay Shale Lagerstätte at Big Gully, Kangaroo Island, South Australia. In: Paterson J.R., Laurie J.R. (eds) Cambro-Ordovician Studies II, Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists, 32, 43–57.
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    1. Paterson J.R.,
    2. Jago J.B.,
    3. Brock G.A.,
    4. Gehling J.G.
    2007. Taphonomy and palaeoecology of the emuellid trilobite Balcoracania dailyi (early Cambrian, South Australia). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 249, 302–321.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  67. ↵
    1. Paterson J.R.,
    2. Jago J.B.,
    3. Gehling J.G.,
    4. García-Bellido D.C.,
    5. Edgecombe G.D.,
    6. Lee M.S.Y.
    2008. Early Cambrian arthropods from the Emu Bay Shale Lagerstätte, South Australia. In: Rábano I., Gozalo R., García-Bellido D. (eds) Advances in Trilobite Research. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero, 9. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid, 319–325.
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. Paterson J.R.,
    2. Edgecombe G.D.,
    3. García-Bellido D.C.,
    4. Jago J.B.,
    5. Gehling J.G.
    2010. Nektaspid arthropods from the lower Cambrian Emu Bay Shale Lagerstätte, South Australia, with a reassessment of lamellipedian relationships. Palaeontology, 53, 377–402.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  69. ↵
    1. Paterson J.R.,
    2. García-Bellido D.C.,
    3. Lee M.S.Y.,
    4. Brock G.A.,
    5. Jago J.B.,
    6. Edgecombe G.D.
    2011. Acute vision in the giant Cambrian predator Anomalocaris and the origin of compound eyes. Nature, 480, 237–240.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  70. ↵
    1. Paterson J.R.,
    2. García-Bellido D.C.,
    3. Edgecombe G.D.
    2012. New artiopodan arthropods from the early Cambrian Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte of South Australia. Journal of Paleontology, 86, 340–357.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Paterson J.R.,
    2. Edgecombe G.D.,
    3. Jago J.B.
    2015. The ‘great appendage’ arthropod Tanglangia: biogeographic connections between early Cambrian biotas of Australia and South China. Gondwana Research, 26, 1667–1672.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Peel J.S.,
    2. Ineson J.R.
    2011. The Sirius Passet Lagerstätte (early Cambrian) of North Greenland. Palaeontographica Canadiana, 31, 109–118.
    OpenUrl
  73. ↵
    1. Peng S.,
    2. Babcock L.E.,
    3. Cooper R.A.
    2012. The Cambrian Period. In: Gradstein F.M., Ogg J.G., Schmitz M.D., Ogg G.M. (eds) The Geologic Time Scale 2012, Volume 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 437–488.
  74. ↵
    1. Sansom R.S.,
    2. Gabbott S.E.,
    3. Purnell M.A.
    2013. Atlas of vertebrate decay: A visual and taphonomic guide to fossil interpretation. Palaeontology, 56, 457–474.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  75. ↵
    1. Shu D.,
    2. Conway Morris S.,
    3. Zhang Z.,
    4. Han J.
    2010. The earliest history of the deuterostomes: The importance of the Chengjiang Fossil-Lagerstätte. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 277, 165–174.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Smith A.B.
    2012. Cambrian problematica and the diversification of deuterostomes. BMC Biology, 10, 79, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/10/79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Smith M.R.
    2013. Nectocaridid ecology, diversity and affinity: Early origin of a cephalopod-like body plan. Paleobiology, 39, 297–321.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    1. Stein M.,
    2. Budd G.E.,
    3. Peel J.S.,
    4. Harper D.A.T.
    2013. Arthroaspis n. gen., a common element of the Sirius Passet Lagerstätte (Cambrian, North Greenland), sheds light on trilobite ancestry. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 13, 99, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/13/99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Torsvik T.H.,
    2. Cocks L.R.M.
    , 2013. New global palaeogeographical reconstructions for the Early Palaeozoic and their generation. In: Harper D.A.T., Servais T. (eds) Early Palaeozoic Biogeography and Palaeogeography. Geological Society, London, Memoirs, 38, 5–24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/M38.2.
    OpenUrl
  80. ↵
    1. Vannier J.,
    2. Caron J.-B.,
    3. et al
    . 2007. Tuzoia: morphology and lifestyle of a large bivalved arthropod of the Cambrian seas. Journal of Paleontology, 81, 445–471.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    1. Vannier J.,
    2. García-Bellido D.C.,
    3. Hu S.,
    4. Chen A.
    2009. Arthropod visual predators in the early pelagic ecosystem: Evidence from the Burgess Shale and Chengjiang biotas. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 276, 2567–2574.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Vinther J.,
    2. Smith M.P.,
    3. Harper D.A.T.
    2011. Vetulicolians from the lower Cambrian Sirius Passet Lagerstätte, North Greenland, and the polarity of morphological characters in basal deuterostomes. Palaeontology, 54, 711–719.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  83. ↵
    1. Wills M.A.,
    2. Gerber S.,
    3. Ruta M.,
    4. Hughes M.
    2012. The disparity of priapulid, archaeopriapulid and palaeoscolecid worms in the light of new data. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25, 2056–2076.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Wilson L.A.,
    2. Butterfield N.J.
    2014. Sediment effects on the preservation of Burgess Shale-type compression fossils. Palaios, 29, 145–153.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  85. ↵
    1. Wu W.,
    2. Zhu M.,
    3. Steiner M.
    2014. Composition and tiering of the Cambrian sponge communities. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 398, 86–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. ↵
    1. Yang J.,
    2. Ortega-Hernández J.,
    3. et al
    . 2015. A superarmored lobopodian from the Cambrian of China and early disparity in the evolution of Onychophora. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112, 8678–8683.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. ↵
    1. Zhao F.,
    2. Caron J.-B.,
    3. Hu S.,
    4. Zhu M.
    2009. Quantitative analysis of taphofacies and paleocommunities in the early Cambrian Chengjiang Lagerstätte. Palaios, 24, 826–839.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  88. ↵
    1. Zhao F.,
    2. Caron J.-B.,
    3. Bottjer D.J.,
    4. Hu S.,
    5. Yin Z.,
    6. Zhu M.
    2014. Diversity and species abundance patterns of the early Cambrian (Series 2, Stage 3) Chengjiang Biota from China. Paleobiology, 40, 50–69.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. ↵
    1. Zhang X.-G.,
    2. Hou X.
    2007. Gravitational constraints on the burial of Chengjiang fossils. Palaios, 22, 448–453.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. ↵
    1. Zhang X.-L.,
    2. Han J.,
    3. Zhang Z.,
    4. Liu H.,
    5. Shu D.
    2004. Redescription of the Chengjiang arthropod Squamacula clypeata Hou and Bergström, from the Lower Cambrian, south-west China. Palaeontology, 47, 605–617.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  91. ↵
    1. Zhang X.-L.,
    2. Fu D.,
    3. Dai T.
    2012. A new species of Kangacaris (Arthropoda) from the Chengjiang lagerstätte, lower Cambrian, southwest China. Alcheringa, 36, 23–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  92. ↵
    1. Zhang Z.,
    2. Han J.,
    3. Zhang X.,
    4. Liu J.,
    5. Shu D.
    2003. Pediculate brachiopod Diandongia pista from the Lower Cambrian of South China. Acta Geologica Sinica, 77, 288–293.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. ↵
    1. Zhang Z.,
    2. Robson S.P.,
    3. Emig C.,
    4. Shu D.
    2008. Early Cambrian radiation of brachiopods: A perspective from South China. Gondwana Research, 14, 241–254.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  94. ↵
    1. Zhu M.,
    2. Zhao Y.,
    3. Chen J.
    2002. Revision of the Cambrian discoidal animals Stellostomites eumorphus and Pararotadiscus guizhouensis from South China. Geobios, 35, 165–185.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the Geological Society: 173 (1)
Journal of the Geological Society
Volume 173, Issue 1
January 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation tools

The Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte: a view of Cambrian life from East Gondwana

John R. Paterson, Diego C. García-Bellido, James B. Jago, James G. Gehling, Michael S.Y. Lee and Gregory D. Edgecombe
Journal of the Geological Society, 173, 1-11, 10 November 2015, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2015-083
John R. Paterson
1Palaeoscience Research Centre, School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Diego C. García-Bellido
2School of Biological Sciences & Environment Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
3Earth Sciences Section, South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James B. Jago
4School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James G. Gehling
2School of Biological Sciences & Environment Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
3Earth Sciences Section, South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael S.Y. Lee
2School of Biological Sciences & Environment Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
3Earth Sciences Section, South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory D. Edgecombe
5Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions
View PDF
Share

The Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte: a view of Cambrian life from East Gondwana

John R. Paterson, Diego C. García-Bellido, James B. Jago, James G. Gehling, Michael S.Y. Lee and Gregory D. Edgecombe
Journal of the Geological Society, 173, 1-11, 10 November 2015, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2015-083
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Email to

Thank you for sharing this Journal of the Geological Society article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte: a view of Cambrian life from East Gondwana
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the Geological Society
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of the Geological Society.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Download PPT
Bookmark this article
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Age, geology and palaeoenvironmental setting
    • The Emu Bay Shale biota: diversity and palaeobiogeographical affinities
    • Palaeoecology
    • Preservation of Emu Bay Shale fossils
    • Summary
    • Acknowledgements and Funding
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Similar Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • The Gogo Formation Lagerstätte: a view of Australia's first great barrier reef
  • The Nonesuch Formation Lagerstätte: a rare window into freshwater life one billion years ago
  • The Shibantan Lagerstätte: insights into the Proterozoic–Phanerozoic transition
Show more: Review focus
  • Most read
  • Most cited
Loading
  • Virtual outcrop-based analysis of channel and crevasse splay sandstone body architecture in the Middle Jurassic Ravenscar Group, Yorkshire, NE England
  • The naming of the Permian System
  • The Eocene−Oligocene transition in Nanggulan, Java: lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy and foraminiferal stable isotopes
  • The Ediacaran origin of Ecdysozoa: integrating fossil and phylogenomic data
  • False biosignatures on Mars: anticipating ambiguity
More...

Journal of the Geological Society

  • About the journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Submit a manuscript
  • Author information
  • Supplementary Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Pay per view
  • Copyright & Permissions
  • Activate Online Subscription
  • Feedback
  • Help

Lyell Collection

  • About the Lyell Collection
  • Lyell Collection homepage
  • Collections
  • Open Access Collection
  • Open Access Policy
  • Lyell Collection access help
  • Recommend to your Library
  • MARC records
  • Digital preservation
  • Developing countries
  • Geofacets
  • Manage your account
  • Cookies

The Geological Society

  • About the Society
  • Join the Society
  • Benefits for Members
  • Online Bookshop
  • Publishing policies
  • Awards, Grants & Bursaries
  • Education & Careers
  • Events
  • Geoscientist Online
  • Library & Information Services
  • Policy & Media
  • Society blog
  • Contact the Society

Published by The Geological Society of London, registered charity number 210161

Print ISSN 
0016-7649
Online ISSN 
2041-479X

Copyright © 2022 Geological Society of London