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
    • eTOC alerts
    • Online First alerts
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
    • GSL blog
  • 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
    • eTOC alerts
    • Online First alerts
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
    • GSL blog
  • Submit

Tabelliscolex (Cricocosmiidae: Palaeoscolecidomorpha) from the early Cambrian Chengjiang Biota and the evolution of seriation in Ecdysozoa

View ORCID ProfileXiaomei Shi, View ORCID ProfileRichard J. Howard, View ORCID ProfileGregory D. Edgecombe, Xianguang Hou and View ORCID ProfileXiaoya Ma
Journal of the Geological Society, 179, jgs2021-060, 6 October 2021, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2021-060
Xiaomei Shi
1Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology, Institute of Palaeontology, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
2MEC International Joint Laboratory for Palaeobiology and Palaeoenvironment, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
Roles: [Conceptualization (Equal)], [Data curation (Supporting)], [Formal analysis (Equal)], [Investigation (Equal)], [Methodology (Equal)], [Writing – original draft (Equal)], [Writing – review & editing (Equal)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Xiaomei Shi
Richard J. Howard
2MEC International Joint Laboratory for Palaeobiology and Palaeoenvironment, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
3Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Truro TR10 9TA, UK
4Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
Roles: [Conceptualization (Equal)], [Data curation (Supporting)], [Formal analysis (Equal)], [Investigation (Equal)], [Methodology (Equal)], [Writing – original draft (Equal)], [Writing – review & editing (Equal)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Richard J. Howard
Gregory D. Edgecombe
2MEC International Joint Laboratory for Palaeobiology and Palaeoenvironment, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
4Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
Roles: [Conceptualization (Supporting)], [Formal analysis (Supporting)], [Investigation (Supporting)], [Methodology (Supporting)], [Supervision (Lead)], [Writing – original draft (Supporting)], [Writing – review & editing (Supporting)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gregory D. Edgecombe
Xianguang Hou
1Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology, Institute of Palaeontology, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
2MEC International Joint Laboratory for Palaeobiology and Palaeoenvironment, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
Roles: [Data curation (Supporting)], [Funding acquisition (Supporting)], [Resources (Supporting)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Xiaoya Ma
1Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology, Institute of Palaeontology, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
2MEC International Joint Laboratory for Palaeobiology and Palaeoenvironment, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
3Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Truro TR10 9TA, UK
Roles: [Conceptualization (Supporting)], [Data curation (Lead)], [Funding acquisition (Lead)], [Investigation (Supporting)], [Methodology (Supporting)], [Project administration (Lead)], [Resources (Lead)], [Supervision (Lead)], [Writing – original draft (Supporting)], [Writing – review & editing (Supporting)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Xiaoya Ma
  • For correspondence: [email protected] [email protected]
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Cricocosmiidae is a clade of palaeoscolecid-like worms from the Chengjiang Biota, China (Cambrian Stage 3). In contrast with palaeoscolecids sensu stricto, which exhibit tessellating microplate trunk ornamentation, cricocosmiids have larger, serially repeated sets of trunk sclerites bearing a resemblance to lobopodian trunk sclerites (e.g. Microdictyon spp.). Cricocosmiidae have therefore been proposed as stem-group Panarthropoda in some studies, but are recovered as stem-group Priapulida in most phylogenetic analyses. The affinity of cricocosmiids within Ecdysozoa is therefore of much interest, as is testing the homology of these seriated structures. We report four new specimens of the rare cricocosmiid Tabelliscolex hexagonus, yielding new details of the ventral trunk projections, sclerites and proboscis. New data confirm that T. hexagonus had paired ventral trunk projections in a consistent seriated pattern, which is also reported from new material of Cricocosmia jinningensis (Cricocosmiidae) and Mafangscolex yunnanensis (Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto). Even when the seriated sclerites and ventral projections of cricocosmiids are coded as homologous with the seriated trunk sclerites and paired appendages, respectively, of lobopodian panarthropods, our tree searches indicate they are convergent. Cricocosmiidae is nested within a monophyletic ‘Palaeoscolecida sensu lato’ clade (Palaeoscolecidomorpha nov.) in stem-group Priapulida. Our study indicates that morphological seriation has independent origins in Scalidophora and Panarthropoda.

Supplementary material: Phylogenetic character list and matrix are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5551565

Thematic collection: This article is part of the Advances in the Cambrian Explosion collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/advances-cambrian-explosion

Palaeoscolecida Conway Morris and Robinson, 1986 is a group of marine benthic ecdysozoan worms with a spiny anterior proboscis, an elongate trunk with striking ornamentation of small, annular-arranged, tessellating polymorphic plates, and bilaterally orientated terminal posterior hooks (Harvey et al. 2010). Cricocosmiidae Hou et al., 1999 are otherwise morphologically similar to palaeoscolecids, but exhibit a different, although also highly characteristic, trunk ornamentation. The cricocosmiids Cricocosmia jinningensis Hou and Sun, 1988 and Tabelliscolex hexagonus Han et al., 2003a possess larger sclerites that are serially repeated in groups along the length of the trunk, with a striking similarity in structure, position and composition to the trunk sclerites of some lobopodian panarthropods such as Onychodictyon spp. and Microdictyon spp. (Han et al. 2007a). Cricocosmiids and a few other vermiform taxa such as Maotianshania cylindrica Sun and Hou, 1987 and Tylotites petiolaris Luo et al., 1999 have been informally grouped with palaeoscolecids as ‘Palaeoscolecida sensu lato’; in this framework, ‘Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto’ is reserved exclusively for those taxa bearing the distinctive polymorphic tessellating plate ornament (see Harvey et al. 2010). Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto has a broad biogeographical and stratigraphic range from the early Cambrian to the late Silurian, whereas Cricocosmiidae, Maotianshania and Tylotites (i.e. Palaeoscolecida sensu lato) are known only from the Cambrian Stage 3 Chengjiang Biota of Yunnan, China.

Individual plates of Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto comprise the form-genera Milaculum, Hadimopanella, Kaimenella and Utahphospha (see Hinz et al. 1990). These small shelly fossils are known from the Cambrian to Silurian across a wide geographical range and are sometimes recovered in association with the scleritome (Hinz et al. 1990; Brock and Cooper 1993; Müller and Hinz-Schallreuter 1993; Zhang and Pratt 1996; Conway Morris 1997; Harvey et al. 2010; Topper et al. 2010; Duan et al. 2012; Streng et al. 2017). Individual plates of the form-genus Hadimopanella have also been identified as small carbonaceous fossils, alongside possibly conspecific pharyngeal teeth, introvert scalids and terminal posterior hooks from the early Cambrian of Scandinavia (Slater et al. 2017). Some small shelly fossil cuticle fragments even preserve in situ the posterior terminal hooks of Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto (e.g. Harvey et al. 2010, their fig. 2e–g). Cricocosmiids remain unidentified from microfossil assemblages. Articulated two-dimensional compression fossils from Konservat-Lagerstätten demonstrate the complete cuticular morphology and partial soft tissue anatomy of both groups, revealing many similarities. Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto described in detail from such articulated material include Scathascolex minor (Smith 2015), Wronascolex antiquus (García-Bellido et al. 2013) and Wronascolex yichangensis (Yang and Zhang 2016), Mafangscolex yunnanensis (Hou and Sun 1988; Luo et al. 2014; Yang et al. 2020); Guanduscolex minor (Hu et al. 2008) and Utahscolex ratcliffei (Whittaker et al. 2020). The best preserved of these Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto exhibit a three-part proboscis divisible into the traditional zonation system common to extant and fossil priapulans (Conway Morris 1977). Zone I is represented by an introvert with rings of scalids, Zone II is the collar – representing a diastema between introvert and pharynx – and Zone III is the eversible pharynx with rings of teeth. This is mirrored by the sometimes exquisitely preserved proboscis morphology of C. jinningensis and M. cylindrica (Huang 2005) and is partially known in T. hexagonus (Han et al. 2003a) and T. petiolaris (Han et al. 2003b, 2007b).

Palaeoscolecid-like worms have an interesting and varied history of phylogenetic interpretation. Palaeoscolecida was originally attributed to Annelida when first described (Whittard 1953), but later researchers favoured an affinity among the cycloneuralian phyla as a result of the annulated trunk region (Dzik and Krumbiegel 1989; Conway Morris 1993), especially after the discovery of the anterior proboscis (Hou and Bergström 1994). Alternative cycloneuralian interpretations of palaeoscolecids have been postulated, the group being allied to either nematomorphs (Hou and Bergström 1994) or priapulans (Conway Morris 1997) or as stem-group Cycloneuralia (Zhuravlev et al. 2011). Another interpretation is that palaeoscolecids represent a basal branch within Ecdysozoa, which was popularized by the influential hypothesis of Dzik and Krumbiegel (1989), wherein palaeoscolecids represent a transitional locomotor strategy linking priapulans and lobopodians. This was advocated by several researchers (Budd 2001a, b, 2003; Budd and Jensen 2003; Zrzavý 2003; Webster et al. 2006) on the basis that palaeoscolecids appear to possess a suite of characters that are expected in the ancestral ecdysozoan, such as an annulated cuticle and an armoured proboscis. Similarities between palaeoscolecids and priapulans were therefore viewed as ecdysozoan plesiomorphies by these researchers. This reconstruction of the ancestral ecdysozoan has been corroborated to a degree by ancestral state reconstructions (Howard et al. 2020a), but morphology-based phylogenetic analyses consistently retrieve a stem-group Priapulida affinity for palaeoscolecid-like worms (Wills 1998; Dong et al. 2004, 2005, 2010; Harvey et al. 2010; Wills et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2014; Ma et al. 2014a; Zhang et al. 2015; Shao et al. 2016). As such, Harvey et al. (2010) dismissed the idea that palaeoscolecid-like worms are basally diverging ecdysozoans. Nevertheless, a recent study once again supported the basal-ecdysozoan interpretation after reporting hexaradial symmetry of the rings of introvert scalids (i.e. circumoral armature) in a member of Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto (Yang et al. 2020). Hexaradial symmetry of the anterior armature is interpreted as plesiomorphic for Ecdysozoa, in contrast with the pentaradial symmetry of crown-group Priapulida (see Liu et al. 2014).

Cricocosmiids, although mostly recovered within stem-group Priapulida as Palaeoscolecida sensu lato in the phylogenetic studies cited here, are also of great phylogenetic interest. Despite their major similarities to Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto, cricocosmiids have been implicated in hypotheses of panarthropod origins. This is because they exhibit a dorso-ventrally differentiated trunk, equipped with serially repeated sclerites that bear considerable similarity to some lobopodian trunk sclerites in both position and composition – thus prompting hypotheses of homology (Han et al. 2007a; Steiner et al. 2012). As such, cricocosmiids are of much evolutionary significance, which has not been explored in the context of ecdysozoan-wide phylogeny. Furthermore, it is unclear which palaeoscolecid-like taxa actually belong in Cricocosmiidae beyond Cricocosmia and Tabelliscolex, and what the exact phylogenetic relationship is between Cricocosmiidae and Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto.

Cricocosmia jinningensis is one of the most common Chengjiang taxa, known from thousands of specimens (see Huang 2005; Hou et al. 2017). However, material and documentation of Tabelliscolex are far sparser, with only one complete specimen of T. hexagonus described (Han et al. 2003a) and a single incomplete specimen of T. chengjiangensis apparently distinguished by sclerite morphology (Han et al. 2007a). Tylotites petiolaris is a similarly scarce palaeoscolecid-like worm from the Chengjiang Biota (Luo et al. 1999; Han et al. 2003b, 2007b), also with serially repeated large sclerites, suggesting a cricocosmiid affinity, although the sclerites are spinose and arranged in annular rings, in contrast with the paired lateral sclerites of Cricocosmia and Tabelliscolex.

We present here new material of T. hexagonus from the Chengjiang Biota, preserving new anatomical details in high fidelity. These specimens facilitate a re-description of Tabelliscolex, and comparison with new material of Cricocosmia and Mafangscolex provides insight into the evolution of the palaeoscolecid-like worms. We conducted an extensive phylogenetic analysis of Ecdysozoa to better resolve the systematics of ‘Palaeoscolecida sensu lato’ (sensu Harvey et al. 2010). Our results facilitated a discussion of the evolution of seriated morphology in Ecdysozoa, suggesting that seriation independently evolved in Panarthropoda and Scalidophora.

Materials and methods

Geological setting

All the specimens studied here belong to the Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology (YKLP) collection and were collected from various locations in the Chengjiang Biota (see Hou et al. 2017), eastern Yunnan, SW China. The Chengjiang Biota is found within the Maotianshan Member of the Yu'anshan Formation at Cambrian Series 2, Stage 3 (c. 518 Ma). The hypothesized location of the Chengjiang Biota during the early Cambrian is near the shore of the South China continent, which was close to the equator (see Hou et al. 2017; Holmes et al. 2018).

Fossil material

Three specimens of Tabelliscolex were collected from Haikou County (all with counterparts; see Figs 1a–e, g, h,2, 3, 4a–c and 5g–i) and an additional specimen missing the counterpart from Anning City (Fig. 1f). One specimen (YKLP 11428) is complete with proboscis and armature, and all specimens show details of the ventral trunk projections. A total of 7131 specimens of C. jinningensis and 703 specimens of M. yunnanensis were also investigated for comparative analysis of the ventral projections (Fig. 5). Details of new palaeoscolecidomorph material reported in this study are listed in Table 1. All specimens are deposited in the Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology, Yunnan University, Kunming, China.

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

Four new specimens of Tabelliscolex hexagonus from the Chengjiang Biota. Parts (a–c) Complete specimen YKLP11428. (a) Part, inset shows that sclerites occur every second annulation. (b) Counterpart, showing the whole body, with inset showing sclerites on every second annulation, the boundaries of which are indicated by black arrows. (c) Close-up of the posterior terminal hook. (d) Part of YKLP11429, inset shows that sclerites occur on every second annulation, with sclerite-bearing annulations narrower than non-sclerite-bearing annulations. (e) Counterpart of specimen YKLP11429, black arrows and close-up inset indicating possible moulting. (f) Specimen YKLP11430 showing that the cuticle is more perishable than the sclerites. (g, h) Complete specimen YKLP11431. (g) Part, the introvert and anterior section of the trunk were compressed and deformed. (h) Counterpart. Scale bars: 5 mm in parts (a), (b), (d), (e), (g) and (h), 1 mm in part (f) and 500 μm in part (c).

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

Camera lucida drawings of Tabelliscolex hexagonus. (a) Part and (b) counterpart of specimen YKLP 11428. (c) Counterpart and (d) part of specimen YKLP 11429. An, annulation; Dr, degradation residues?; Gu, gut; Is, introvert scalids; Ph, pharynx; Sc, sclerites; Th, terminal hook; Vp, ventral projections. Scale bars: 6 mm in parts (a) and (b) and 5 mm in parts (c) and (d).

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

Proboscis of Tabelliscolex hexagonus. (a) Proboscis of part of YKLP 11428. (b) Camera lucida drawing of part. The proboscis is subdivided into three sections: introvert, collar and pharynx. Three zones can be identified along the everted pharynx according to the variation in width and pharyngeal teeth. Cs, collar spines; Is, introvert scalids; Pt, pharyngeal teeth. Scale bar: 1 mm.

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

Scanning electron microscopy images of trunk sclerites. Parts (a–c) Tabelliscolex hexagonus YKLP 11429. (a) Three rows of sclerites along the trunk, two lateral and one dorsal. (b) Close-up of left-hand white box in part (a) showing the outer surface of sclerite with many tubercles. (c) Close-up of right-hand white box in part (a) showing the inner surface of sclerite with tiny pits. Parts (d–f) Cricocosmia jinningensis YKLP 11432. (d) Two rows of lateral sclerites of Cricocosmia. (e) Close-up of left-hand white box in part (d) showing the outer surface of sclerite with many tiny tubercles and a central spine. (f) Close-up of right-hand box in part (d) showing the inner surface of sclerite with tiny pits. Parts (g, h) The lobopodian Microdictyon sinicum YKLP 11433. (g) Sclerite of Microdictyon. (h) Close-up of white box in part (g) showing the nodes surrounding the holes. (i) Sclerite of Onychodictyon ferox YKLP 11434. Mg, margin of sclerite. Scale bars: 1 mm in parts (a) and (i), 500 μm in parts (b), (d) and (g), 400 μm in parts (c) and (h) and 200 μm in parts (e) and (f).

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

Ventral projections. Parts (a–c) Mafangscolex yunnanensis. (a) YKLP 11435. The white arrows indicate laterally compressed ventral projections and the black arrows show the vertically compressed ventral projections. (b) YKLP 11436. Close-up of laterally compressed ventral projections occurring every two annulations and perpendicular to the body. (c) YKLP 11437. Close-up of vertically compressed ventral projections preserved as nodes. Parts (d–f) Cricocosmia jinningensis. (d) YKLP 11438. White arrows indicate paired ventral projections corresponding to each pair of sclerites. (e) YKLP 11439. Close-up of laterally compressed ventral projections showing spine shapes with the tips pointing posteriorly (white arrows). (f) YKLP 11440. Close-up of a pair of laterally compressed ventral projections in a ventrally preserved specimen. Parts (g–i) Tabelliscolex hexagonus, YKLP 11428. (g) Region of the trunk showing that paired ventral projections are distributed repeatedly every two or three set of sclerites. (h) Close-up of white box in part (g) showing a pair of vertically compressed ventral projections. (i) A laterally compressed ventral projection (white arrows) revealing its spine-shaped profile. Scale bars: 1 mm in parts (a) and (g), 500 μm in parts (c) and (d), 250 μm in parts (h) and (i) and 100 μm in parts (b), (e) and (f).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Details of new palaeoscolecidomorph material reported in this study

All specimens are preserved in fine-grained yellowish mudstone. All are essentially flattened compressions in a lateral, dorsolateral or ventrolateral perspective, although retaining a low degree of three-dimensional relief in some structures, such as the sclerites, scalids and gut tract. The preservation of the trunk sclerites in Tabelliscolex and Cricocosmia is similar to that investigated by previous researchers (see Han et al. 2007a; Steiner et al. 2012). Dark carbon films represent gut tracts. The observations, preparation and camera lucida drawings were performed under a Nikon SMZ800N microscope. Photographs were taken using a Leica M205 microscope and a Canon EOS 6D Mark II digital camera equipped with either a 100 or 65 mm macro lens. A Keyence VHX-6000 3D imaging microscope was used to create topographic models of the ventral projections in Tabelliscolex (Fig. 6) and sclerites in various taxa were imaged under an FEI Quanta 650 scanning electron microscope (Fig. 4).

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

Three-dimensional detail of ventral projections of Tabelliscolex hexagonus (YKLP 11428). Paired vertically compressed ventral projections were imaged with a three-dimensional imaging microscope (see methods) to reveal topological information. (a–c) One ventral projection preserved as a convex node with a total height of 80.9 μm. (d–f) The other ventral projection preserved as a concave depression with a total depth of 84.0 μm. (g–i) Comparison between the paired ventral projections, with one convex and one concave. Scale bars: 50 μm.

Phylogenetic methods

Phylogenetic analyses were performed to resolve the position of palaeoscolecid-like worms within Ecdysozoa (Fig. 7). The tree searches used four alternative optimality criteria (equal-weights parsimony, implied-weights parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference) to account for the debate over the most suitable method to analyse discrete morphological characters (O'Reilly et al. 2016, 2018a, b; Puttick et al. 2017, 2019; Goloboff et al. 2018a, b).

Fig. 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 7.

Phylogenetic trees. (a) Full results of maximum likelihood tree search with bootstrap support values. Full results for parsimony and Bayesian methods can be found in the Supplementary Material (Figs S1–3). (b) Summary tree of nodes consistently retrieved by parsimony tree searches showing the relative position of Palaeoscolecidomorpha within stem-group Priapulida. As equal-weights parsimony was unable to resolve the branching order or stem-group Priapulida, the position of Eopriapulites from implied-weights parsimony is also shown. (c) Optimization of character acquisitions in Palaeoscolecidomorpha using WinClada for equal-weights parsimony. 1, posterior terminal hooks; 2, cuticle surface with ornament of tessellating polygons; 3, Zone 1 armature comprises fewer than three rings; 4, two pairs of posterior hooks; 5, triplet of posterior hooks; 6, unarmed posterior introvert; 7, absence of coronal spines; 8, three pairs of posterior hooks; 9, serially repeated epidermal specializations (sclerites); 10, Zone II armed; 11, 3:1 relationship of sclerites to ventral projections; 12, acute distal termination to sclerites; 13, sclerites in complete transverse rings; 14, sclerites taller than wide (i.e. spines).

Parsimony tree searches were conducted in TNT 1.5 (Goloboff et al. 2008; Goloboff and Catalano 2016) using the New Technology Search function with default settings. A strict consensus of the six most parsimonious trees is presented from equal character weighting (Fig. S1) and clade support was assessed by jack-knife resampling (Fig. S1; Table 2) (Farris et al. 1996). A strict consensus of the four most parsimonious trees (Fig. S2) is presented for implied character weighting (using the default concavity constant k = 3) and clade support was assessed by symmetrical resampling (Fig. S2) (Goloboff et al. 2003). Consistently recovered nodes across parsimony analyses are summarized in Figure 7b and c. Character transformations within Palaeoscolecidomorpha were optimized in a parsimony context using WinClada (Nixon 2002) (Fig. 7c).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Support for palaeoscolecidomorph clades across phylogenetic optimality criteria

Probabilistic tree searches used the MK model for discrete morphological character data (Lewis 2001). The maximum likelihood implementation was conducted in IQ-Tree (Nguyen et al. 2015) (Fig. 7a), with nodal support assessed by 1000 Ultrafast bootstrap (UFBoot) replicates (Minh et al. 2013; Hoang et al. 2018). The Bayesian implementation was conducted in MrBayes 3.2 (Ronquist et al. 2012). The Bayesian analysis was run until convergence of the MCMC (Markov chain Monte Carlo) chains after 6 000 000 generations. Convergence was assessed from the average standard deviation of split frequencies (<0.01), ESS (Effective Sample Size) scores (>200) and PSRF (Potential Scale Reduction Factor) values (c. 1.00). Twenty-five per cent of the samples were discarded as burn-in and a majority rule consensus was output (Fig. S3).

Results

Systematic palaeontology

Phylum (stem-group) Priapulida Delage and Hérouard, 1897

Clade Palaeoscolecidomorpha nov. (=Palaeoscolecida sensu

lato in Harvey et al. 2010)

Included taxa:

Palaeoscolecida Conway Morris and Robinson, 1986 (=Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto in Harvey et al. 2010)

Cricocosmiidae Hou et al., 1999 (emended to include Tylotites Luo et al., 1999)

Maotianshania Sun and Hou, 1987

Markuelia Val'kov, 1983

Diagnosis: Annulated worm-like body with an anterior armoured proboscis, an elongate trunk of consistent width and terminal posterior hooks. Anterior proboscis divided into three sections from proximal to distal: introvert with circumoral longitudinal rows of spines (presumed scalids); collar region with or without spines; and pharynx covered in rings of pharyngeal teeth. Introvert at least partially retractable into the trunk, pharynx elongate and fully eversible. Posterior terminal hooks arranged bilaterally about the sagittal plane of the trunk.

Remarks: The division of the proboscis is likely to be a plesiomorphy for Priapulida (see Conway Morris 1977). The reliable autapomorphies of Palaeoscolecidomorpha are the elongate body profile with consistent trunk width (i.e. the trunk does not vary in width throughout the length of the body and the lateral margins are virtually parallel) and the terminal posterior hooks. The number of hooks may vary across taxa, but are always arranged bilaterally, with a left hook and a right hook (or a left and right pair). Serially repeated paired ventral trunk projections are present in select Cricocosmiidae and Palaeoscolecida (Figs 5 and 8) and represent another possible autapomorphy for Palaescolecidomorpha.

Fig. 8.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 8.

Reconstructions of Cambrian ecdysozoans with seriated trunk structures. Seriated ventral/ventrolateral structures are shown in red and seriated lateral structures in blue. Parts (a–d) show animals in lateral view. (a) Mafangscolex, exhibiting paired spine-like ventral projections perpendicular to the body wall, located in the middle of every second annulation, with annulations demarcated by rows of tessellating plates/microplates. (b) Cricocosmia, exhibiting paired curved ventral projections facing posteriorly, located on every annulation and corresponding to a pair of lateral sclerites. (c) Tabelliscolex, exhibiting paired curved ventral projections facing posteriorly, corresponding to the annulation between every third set of sclerites. (d) Microdictyon, exhibiting nine ventrolateral lobopod pairs corresponding to nine lateral sclerite pairs, with an additional tenth posterior pair of lobopods not associated with a sclerite pair. (e) The same four animals, from top to bottom, in transverse cross-section.

Family Cricocosmiidae Hou et al., 1999

Included genera:

Cricocosmia Hou and Sun, 1988

Tylotites Luo and Hu, 1999

Tabelliscolex Han et al., 2003a

Revised diagnosis: Palaeoscolecidomorphs with serially repeated arrangements of macroscopic trunk sclerites and corresponding paired ventral projections (at least in Cricocosmia and Tabelliscolex), a single pair of terminal posterior hooks and a posterior unarmed region of the introvert. Trunk sclerites composed of many tubercles of equal size on the outer surface with corresponding pits on the inner surface (at least in Cricocosmia and Tabelliscolex).

Remarks: In the previous revision of Cricocosmiidae (Han et al. 2007a), Tylotites was not included, but our phylogenetic analysis recovered Tylotites within this clade (see Fig. 7). Therefore the family Tylotitidae Han et al., 2003b is a synonym of Cricocosmiidae. The serially repeated trunk sclerites are distinct in shape and arrangement in each genus, but their presence is autapomorphic for Cricocosmiidae. Tylotites lacks data on sclerite fine structure, so the presence of tubercles and corresponding pits is unknown. Tylotites sclerites differ considerably from Cricocosmia and Tabelliscolex in arrangement, being long conical spines along transverse rings. Cricocosmia exhibits lateral pairs and Tabelliscolex exhibits lateral pairs with an additional dorsal sclerite for each pair. Tylotites and Cricocosmia are sister taxa in our parsimony and maximum likelihood analyses (see Figs 7, S1 and S2) and share the synapomorphy of an acute distal termination to their sclerites (i.e. an overall spinose shape with a distinct apex), although in Tylotites the spines are elongated. The presence of paired ventral projections is unknown in Tylotites, but likely considering this character is present in Cricocosmia, Tabelliscolex and Mafangscolex (Palaeoscolecida), and therefore is likely to be a plesiomorphy for Cricocosmiidae. The posterior unarmed introvert region (i.e. a smooth region between the Zone I armature and the trunk annulations) is present in all cricocosmiids and also in Maotianshania (see Huang 2005). This character is also possibly present in Markuelia (see reconstruction in Dong et al. 2010), but it is inferred from coiled late-stage embryos and is therefore less reliable. Regardless, Maotianshania and Markuelia are resolved proximally to Cricocosmiidae to the exclusion of Palaeoscolecida (see Fig. 7), which appear to lack this character (e.g. Smith 2015, figs 1a, h, i and 3; García-Bellido et al. 2013, fig. 3a; and Yang et al. 2020, figs 1a, b and 2o). The phosphatic cuticle fragment taxon Houscolex Zhang and Pratt, 1996, from the early Cambrian of Shaanxi, was also referred to Cricocosmiidae by Han et al. (2007a). Although it possesses ventral projections resembling those of Cricocosmia and Mafangscolex, it lacks large sclerites, and accordingly is excluded from the Cricocosmiidae as delimited here.

Genus Tabelliscolex Han et al., 2003a

Type species: Tabelliscolex hexagonus Han et al., 2003a

Diagnosis: (emended from Han et al. 2003a; Huang 2005) Cricocosmiid worm with two lateral rows of ellipsoidal sclerites and a single corresponding dorsal row of ellipsoidal sclerites. Typical three-zoned proboscis exhibits at least seven circlets of elongate spines on the introvert (Zone I), stout triangular spines on the collar (Zone II) and many circlets of short, spinose pharyngeal teeth (Zone III). Paired ventral projections are preserved as teardrop-shaped from above, or spine-shaped in lateral profile, curving posteriorly, and are present beneath every third set of sclerites.

Species Tabelliscolex hexagonus Han et al., 2003a

2003, Tabelliscolex hexagonus Han et al. 2003a, plate 1

2005, Tabelliscolex hexagonus Huang 2005, plate 46

2007, Tabelliscolex hexagonus Han et al. 2007a, plates 1, 4 and 6

2007, Tabelliscolex chengjiangensis Han et al. 2007a, plates 1, 4

and 6, syn. nov.

Diagnosis: As for the genus.

Holotype: Eli-0001218A, Han et al. 2003a, plate 1.1.

Paratypes: Eli-0001219A, Eli-0001220A, Eli-0001221A and Eli-0001222A, Han et al. 2003a, plates 1.2–5.

Description: Two of the four new specimens preserve the full length of the trunk: YKLP 11428 and YKLP 11431 (Figs 1a–c, g and h and 2a, b). YKLP 11428 measures 7.9 cm in length and up to 0.3 cm in width, whereas YKLP 11431 measures 3.4 cm in length and up to 0.2 cm in width, indicating either different stages of maturity or intraspecific variation. The body is slim, cylindrical and divided into an anterior proboscis, annulated trunk with net-like ellipsoidal sclerites and a pair of terminal posterior hooks on the trunk.

Proboscis: YKLP 11428 shows the completely everted proboscis (Fig. 3) and facilitates a more detailed description. The proboscis is subdivided into three sections (Zones I–III) from anterior to posterior in typical fashion for palaeoscolecidomorphs (introvert, collar and pharynx). The width of the everted introvert is almost equal to the width of the trunk. The length of the fully everted pharynx reaches c. 5 mm and the pharynx features numerous circlets of tiny spinose teeth. The pharynx consists of three sections: section 1 is c. 2.2 mm in length and is slightly wider than the collar, covered with teeth pointing anteriorly; section 2 is swollen, 1.1 mm in length and also covered with teeth pointing anteriorly; and section 3 is at least 1.6 mm in length with a uniform width and covered with teeth pointing laterally (see Fig. 3b). The collar is roughly conical and ornamented by stout, triangular spines. The collar spines sit immediately below the everted pharynx and are c. 0.1 mm in length. The introvert follows the collar with a clear boundary and is ornamented by elongate curved spines (presumably scalids). The spines are arranged circumorally, forming longitudinal rows. From anterior to posterior, each longitudinal row of spines becomes shorter in length. The spines of the first three circlets are c. 0.7 mm in length and are elongate and curved with sharp tips (Fig. 3); the spines in the following circlets become shorter and their lengths are about one-third that of the scalids in the first three circles, with at least seven circlets in total. The fidelity of preservation is not sufficient to determine the exact number of spines per row or their mode of radial symmetry.

The detailed morphology of the proboscis in T. hexagonus remains incomplete, but is improved by the present study. Our observations show that YKLP 11428 appears to exhibit three distinct fields of pharyngeal teeth, as in C. jinningensis (see Huang 2005). However, C. jinningensis appears to have a markedly different tooth morphology and arrangement in those distinct fields, but this cannot be confirmed or rejected in T. hexagonus due to the quality of preservation. The pharynx of the putative cricocosmiid T. petiolaris (see Han et al. 2007b) is too poorly preserved/figured to be compared for this character. Other palaeoscolecidomorphs with detailed available pharyngeal morphology data do not share this configuration. The pharynx of M. cylindrica certainly differs, with simple uniform spinose teeth covering most of it, and some more elongate basal teeth (Huang 2005). Mafangscolex yunnanensis exhibits two fields of teeth with differing arrangements, but seemingly uniform morphology (Yang et al. 2020), and S. minor exhibits just one field with cusped morphology (Smith 2015).

Trunk: The annulated trunk is cylindrical and elongate with no discernible subdivision, with about four annulations per millimetre. YKLP 11428 shows that the annulations in the anterior-most portion of the trunk are denser and lacking in sclerites (Fig. 2a). T. hexagonus exhibits a single bilateral pair of hooks at the posterior termination of the trunk, each hook being curved and bent laterally with a broad base.

Sclerites: T. hexagonus bears 110–120 sets of serially repeated sclerites along the majority of the length of the trunk. Each set is composed of three ellipsoidal flat sclerites arranged transversely (one dorsal, two lateral). The dorsal sclerite is equal in size to its corresponding lateral sclerites (Figs 2c, d and 4a). The length to width ratio of the sclerites decreases gradually from anterior to posterior (Fig. S4). Each sclerite is ornamented with outer tubercles (c. 120) and corresponding inner pits. The pit/tubercle diameter ranges from 20 to 30 μm. There is a clear and smooth gap between each set of sclerites, with boundaries running either side of the gap transversely across the trunk to the body margin, which is best seen in some parts of YKLP 11428 and 11429 (Figs 1a, b, d and 8c; also seen in Han et al. 2003a, plate I, fig. 1d, and Huang 2005, fig. 46a–d). If each set of sclerites is assumed to be situated in the middle of every annulation, as shown in the reconstructions of Huang (2005, fig. 45) or Han et al. (2007a, fig. 6b), then the annulation boundaries should run across the middle of the gap between each set of sclerites, but this is not observed. Therefore each of these gaps is interpreted as a non-sclerite-bearing annulation and sclerite sets occur on every two annulations (Figs 1a, b, d and 8c). It appears that the sclerite-bearing annulations are slightly narrower than those without sclerites, indicating heteronomous annulation, which is known from varied ecdysozoan taxa.

Ventral projections: Pairs of projections are serially repeated along the length of the ventral trunk (see Figs 2 and 5g–i), seemingly occurring beneath every three sets of sclerites (Fig. 8c). The pair is usually preserved as teardrop-shaped, with one convex projection and one concave projection (Fig. 6). The depth–height ratio of the ventral projections ranges from 25 to 90 μm and the length of the projection can reach up to 0.5 mm. Laterally compressed projections reveal that these ventral projections are spine-shaped in profile, curving posteriorly, with a strong base (Fig. 5i).

Remarks: Han et al. (2007a) described a second species, Tabelliscolex chengjiangensis, differing from T. hexagonus by having concentric lamina in some pits and possibly lacking dorsal sclerites. No complete nor articulated fragmentary specimen of T. chengjiangensis has yet been reported. This additional species is described from suspected moulted sclerites with a concentric lamina pit interpreted as absent in the type species T. hexagonus. In general, a concave structure is more likely to gather clay, pyrite particles and other minerals in late diagenesis, and therefore the concentric lamina may not be primary biogenic structures. As such, the moulted sclerites described as T. chengjiangensis may be synonymous with T. hexagonus; more specimens are needed to confirm the validity of T. chengjiangensis.

New observations in Cricocosmia and Mafangscolex

In addition to T. hexagonus, we report similar paired ventral structures in M. yunnanensis (Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto) and C. jinningensis (Cricocosmiidae). The ventral projections of Mafangscolex are spike-like (Fig. 5b), 0.20–0.25 mm in length, with an expanded base (Fig. 5c), occurring roughly every two annulations (Figs 5a, b and 8a). The ventral projections of Mafangscolex occur on the median zone between two transverse plate bands. The ventral projections of Mafangscolex are perpendicular to the body wall (Fig. 5b). The shape of the ventral projections of Cricocosmia appears similar to those of Mafangscolex in dorsal view, but there are marked differences. Cricocosmia ventral projections correspond to paired lateral sclerites per annulation and, in lateral view, it can be observed that the tip of the ventral projection of Cricocosmia points posteriorly (Fig. 5d–f). The ventral projections of Tabelliscolex are clearly larger than those of Cricocosmia and Mafangscolex, are preserved in high relief (Fig. 6) and overall are more similar in shape to those of Cricocosmia than Mafangscolex.

Phylogenetic characters

The phylogenetic character matrix (included in NEXUS format as a supplementary data file) was used in all tree searches and consisted of 95 fossil and extant ecdysozoan taxa scored for 179 morphological characters. This character sample derives primarily from two previous matrices: the cycloneuralian-focused matrix of Harvey et al. (2010) and the panarthropod-focused matrix used and updated in Smith and Ortega-Hernández (2014), Smith and Caron (2015), Yang et al. (2015) and Zhang et al. (2016). The full list of character descriptions is included as an appendix in the Supplementary Material. The following newly defined/modified characters are of specific relevance to the present study (i.e. pertaining to the seriated structures common to palaeoscolecid-like worms and lobopodians) and are listed in the order in which they appear in the character list.

77. Trunk with serially repeated paired ventral/ventrolateral structures (absent or present)

This character suggests the homology of the paired ventrolateral trunk lobopods of panarthropods with the paired ventral projections in Mafangscolex, Cricocosmia and Tabelliscolex. This is justified by the consistent metameric pattern of the ventral projection pairs relative to the trunk annulations (Fig. 5) and, in the case of Cricocosmia and Tabelliscolex, relative to lateral/dorsolateral sclerites shared by lobopodians (see reconstructions in Fig. 8). As such, the projections are consistent with lobopods in topological position, occur in a serially repeated sequence and share a metameric relationship to lateral/dorsolateral sclerites with many lobopodian taxa. Tylotites is coded as unknown(?) because it has serially repeated ventral spines (Han et al. 2007b), but it is unknown whether these are distinct paired structures that can be discriminated from the transverse rings of spinose sclerites that are unique to this taxon.

An alternative to this character formulation would draw a homology between the ventral projections of palaeoscolecidomorphs and the claws of panarthropods. We regard this as less plausible than a homology with the lobopod/appendage as a whole for the following reasons. First, in terms of character ontology, the whole–part relationship between an appendage and its claw is appendage (whole)–claw (part), so the claw evolving before the appendage violates the character ontology, whereas a proposal that appendages existed in palaeoscolecidomorph ancestry, but were lost apart from the claws, is ad hoc. Second, evidence for claws – a recalcitrant morphological element (Murdock et al. 2016) – is missing from many lobopodian taxa, challenging an assumption that claws are a panarthropod plesiomorphy. Some taxa are missing claws, including Diania (see Ma et al. 2014b) and Xenusion (see Dzik and Krumbiegel 1989), which are potential stem-group Panarthropoda according to some of our phylogenetic analyses. Third, the ventral projections of palaeoscolecidomorphs are not sclerotized, but rather are preserved in the same colour and style as the body wall, whereas sclerotized claws are darker and more opaque than the lobopod. In addition, claws are usually paired (except Aysheaia, Hallucigenia hongmeia and Luolishaniidae), whereas the ventral projections are single: one left and one right.

78. Form of serially repeated paired ventral/ventrolateral trunk structures (simple projections or limbs)

This character discriminates the paired spine-like projections of Mafangscolex, Cricocosmia and Tabelliscolex from lobopods. Although the paired ventral projections of the worms mirror those of lobopods in a topological context, lobopods are markedly different in their more flexible, conical form, with a broad circular attachment to the body wall (Whittington 1978; Hou et al. 2004; Liu et al. 2008; Howard et al. 2020b).

79. Serially repeated epidermal specializations (absent or present)

In addition to many lobopodian taxa, this is coded present for Cricocosmia (as in Yang et al. 2015) and Tabelliscolex, which have serially repeated pairs/triplets of lateral/dorsolateral sclerites (Han et al. 2007a), and Tylotites, which has serially repeated transverse rings of spinose sclerites (Han et al. 2007b). Mafangscolex and other palaeoscolecid-like worms are coded as absent.

80. Position of serially repeated epidermal specializations (longitudinal rows, incomplete transverse rings or complete transverse rings)

In most lobopodians, Cricocosmia and Tabelliscolex, the serially repeated epidermal specializations (e.g. nodes, spines and sclerites) are arranged in longitudinal rows in a dorsal, lateral or dorsolateral perspective. Tylotites (see Han et al. 2007b) and the luolishaniid lobopodian Acinocricus (see Caron and Aria 2020), however, exhibit their respective sclerites in rings. In the case of Tylotites, the sclerites form complete rings around the body, whereas in Acinocricus the rings do not conjoin ventrally. Two taxa therefore exhibit serially repeated spinose sclerites in rings: Tylotites (complete ring) and Acinocricus (incomplete ring). This character also differentiates the two by the dorso-ventral differentiation exhibited by Tylotites, wherein the more ventral spines of the transverse ring are considerably shorter than more dorsal spines (see Han et al. 2007b, fig. 1.1).

93. Correspondence of serially repeated dorsolateral epidermal specializations to ventral paired structures (1:1, 2:1, 3:1 or 4:1)

In most lobopodians and Cricocosmia, there is a 1:1 relationship between trunk lobopod pairs and the metameric epidermal specializations – that is, for every serially repeated group of epidermal specializations (e.g. nodes or spines) there is one pair of ventral structures (lobopods or ventral projections; see Figs 5d and 8b for Cricocosmia). In Tabelliscolex, the ventral projection pairs occur beneath every third serial sclerite triplet (see Figs 1, 2 and 8c), in Luolishania beneath every second (Ma et al. 2009) and in Thanohita beneath every fourth (Siveter et al. 2018). Coded 1:1 for Collinsovermis (Caron and Aria 2020), inapplicable (–) for Mafangscolex and uncertain (?) for Tylotites and Acinocricus.

Phylogenetic trees

The majority of our phylogenetic analyses (all parsimony tree searches and maximum likelihood) recovered an exclusive monophyletic grouping of the palaeoscolecid-like worms, located within stem-group Priapulida that we name Palaeoscolecidomorpha (see Fig. 7). This clade is essentially equivalent to ‘Palaeoscolecida sensu lato’ as defined by Harvey et al. (2010), which was ambiguous in terms of monophyly in that study. Only Bayesian inference failed to recover Palaeoscolecidomorpha, but it also did not resolve Scalidophora beyond the extant priapulan taxa and Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto. Full topologies with 95 taxa and support values for all tree searches are presented in the Supplementary Material.

When Palaeoscolecidomorpha was recovered, it always contained a monophyletic clade comprising Wronascolex, Mafangscolex and Scathascolex (representatives of Palaeoscolecida = ‘Palaeoscolecida sensu stricto’ in Harvey et al. 2010) and another containing Cricocosmia, Tylotites and Tabelliscolex (Cricocosmiidae). The position of Maotianshania and Markuelia within Palaeoscolecidomorpha was slightly variable across optimality criteria, but they were always closer to Cricocosmiidae than to Palaeoscolecida. Maximum likelihood resolved Maotianshania and Markuelia as sister taxa and that clade, in turn, was a sister taxon to Cricocosmiidae. However, in the parsimony strict consensuses, Markuelia and Maotianshania form a polytomy with Cricocosmiidae.

No tree search yielded a relationship between Palaeoscolecidomorpha and Panarthropoda. Stem-group Panarthropoda comprises only Aysheaia under equal-weights parsimony and maximum likelihood, whereas Aysheaia is resolved in the stem-group of Tardigrada (as sister to Onychodictyon) under implied-weights parsimony. The stem-group of Panarthropoda comprises Microdictyon, Xenusion, Diania and Paucipodia under implied-weights parsimony, whereas other methods recovered these lobopodians in stem-group Onychophora. Bayesian inference did not resolve the stem-group of Panarthropoda.

Discussion

Systematics of palaeoscolecidomorph worms

According to our phylogenetic analyses, Palaeoscolecidomorpha is most likely a clade within the stem-group of Priapulida, forming the sister-group to the clade comprising crown-group Priapulida and the paraphyletic assemblage of ‘archaeopriapulids’ (e.g. Ottoia, see Conway Morris 1977; Eximipriapulus, see Ma et al. 2014a). The hexaradially ornamented phosphatic microfossil Eopriapulites (Liu et al. 2014) was usually the most stemward branch of total-group Priapulida, lending support to the hypothesis that Ecdysozoa is ancestrally hexaradial in circumoral armature (Liu et al. 2014). The armature of M. yunnanensis has been determined to be hexaradial (Yang et al. 2020) and therefore it is inferred that the transition to pentaradial circumoral armature occurred in the more crownward paraphyletic ‘archaeopriapulid’ assemblage. The crown-group Priapulida plus ‘archaeopriapulids’ clade is constrained to a minimum divergence point of the Ediacaran–Cambrian boundary by the ichnospecies Treptichnus pedum (Vannier et al. 2010; Kesidis et al. 2019), which indicates that Palaeoscolecidomorpha had also diverged by this point. As such, the fossil record shows Palaeoscolecidomorpha probably existed from at least the terminal Ediacaran until at least the Silurian.

Palaeoscolecidomorpha is supported by two unambiguous autapomorphies: bilaterally arranged terminal posterior hooks and an elongate trunk of consistent width (see systematic palaeontology). Bilateral terminal posterior hooks are present in all included taxa, although with variations in the number of hooks/spines. Duan et al. (2012) rejected a palaeoscolecid affinity for Markuelia on the basis of the number of posterior spines (three pairs) and the absence of polymorphic tessellating plate ornament. Our analysis partly supports the hypothesis of Duan et al. (2012) in that Markuelia is not a member of Palaeoscolecida. Markuelia is recovered here in the more inclusive Palaeoscolecidomorpha, in which all taxa share the presence of posterior bilateral spines/hooks, also including taxa with seemingly derived numbers of hooks (e.g. the triplet set of Wronascolex and the double pair of Scathascolex). The inclusion of Markuelia within Palaeoscolecidomorpha suggests that palaeoscolecidomorphs were direct developers (see Dong 2007; Dong et al. 2004, 2005, 2010), but are bracketed by loricate taxa in our phylogeny (Loricifera, Sicyophorus and crown-group Priapulida), suggesting that direct development is a derived trait in Markuelia/Palaeoscolecidomorpha. The elongate trunk of consistent width is also present in all included palaeoscolecidomorph taxa and presents a reliable character for identifying poorly preserved palaeoscolecidomorph fossils that preserve little or no cuticular ornamentation (e.g. Conway Morris and Peel 2010).

One additional potential palaeoscolecidomorph autapomorphy is the seriated paired ventral projections (see Fig. 5). Ventral projections are clearly present in the cricocosmiids Cricocosmia and Tabelliscolex, but also apparently in the palaeoscolecids Mafangscolex and Houscolex (see Zhang and Pratt 1996, fig. 2), which implies that this character is plesiomorphic to both groups (hence an autapomorphy of Palaeoscolecidomorpha). However, some caution is required, as this character is clearly absent in all known stages of development in Markuelia (Dong et al. 2010). Furthermore, it is unknown whether this character occurs in the remaining two-dimensional compression taxa because it is rarely preserved, even in the taxa in which it definitely occurs other than Tabelliscolex, but the presence of ventral structures is also not precluded in these without further study. For example, only 21 of 703 specimens of Mafangscolex preserved the ventral projections in the present study (see Table 1) and most palaeoscolecid studies include substantially fewer specimens than the present study.

Palaeoscolecida is supported as a group within Palaeoscolecidomorpha by a single, but highly distinctive, autapomorphy: the annular-arranged tessellating polymorphic plate ornamentation. Within Palaeoscolecida, Scathascolex and Wronascolex each show a derived number of posterior hooks. Mafangscolex exhibits a single pair of hooks similar to cricocosmiids and Maotianshania, whereas Scathascolex has a double pair of hooks (Smith 2015, fig. 1j) and W. antiquus has a triplet (García-Bellido et al. 2013, fig. 3f). A single ring of introvert spines/scalids is autapomorphic to S. minor. The introverts of all other palaeoscolecidomorph taxa (and the vast majority of scalidophorans) consist of multiple transverse rings. Smith (2015) speculated that the single ring in Scathascolex may be indicative of a nematoid affinity because rings of circumoral structures on nematoid proboscises are much fewer than those of scalidophorans, but our analyses do not support this. Scathascolex exhibits several other characters allying it to Scalidophora and Palaeoscolecida (see Table 3). Cricocosmiidae is supported by at least one distinctive autapomorphy, the variable seriated large trunk sclerites (see systematic palaeontology) and appears to share the unarmed posterior proboscis region with at least Maotianshania.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Comparison of key characters in Palaeoscolecidomorpha

Seriated sclerites in Cambrian Ecdysozoa

Dzik and Krumbiegel (1989) predicted that palaeoscolecid-like worms represented a transitionary locomotor grade between infaunal priapulans and errant epibenthic lobopodians (Dzik and Krumbiegel 1989, fig. 6). This was presented as evidence of the shared ancestry of lobopodians (‘xenusiids’) and priapulans, which was confirmed in the following decade by the advent of molecular phylogenetics and the Ecdysozoa hypothesis (Aguinaldo et al. 1997; Giribet and Edgecombe 2017). In the model of Dzik and Krumbiegel (1989), a hypothetical worm is depicted to represent the ‘missing link’ between palaeoscolecids and the relatively simple lobopodian Xenusion auerswaldae, which was resolved in stem-group Panarthropoda by implied-weights parsimony in our study (Fig. S2). This hypothetical worm had paired, seriated, dorsolateral and ventrolateral structures. This depiction therefore resembles our current interpretation of cricocosmiids in cross-section and lateral profile (see Fig. 8e). Cricocosmiids were poorly known at the time of publication of Dzik and Krumbiegel (1989), but subsequent studies recognized the similarity of the seriated sclerites of Tabelliscolex, Cricocosmia and several lobopodians (Han et al. 2007a; Steiner et al. 2012). This naturally provoked hypotheses in these studies of panarthropod ancestry among cricocosmiids, seemingly corroborated by Dzik and Krumbiegel's predictions. This has not, however, been supported by previous morphology-based phylogenetics (e.g. Harvey et al. 2010) and is not supported by our phylogenetic analyses (see Fig. 7), even with the ventral projections newly accounted for and a significantly better representative taxon and character sample for Ecdysozoa as a whole. Furthermore, there is evidence that cricocosmiids were infaunal burrow dwellers (Huang et al. 2014), whereas Dzik and Krumbiegel (1989) expected such a worm to be epibenthic.

Like Tabelliscolex, Cricocosmia bears two lateral rows of sclerites (Figs 5d and 8b) with two distinct surfaces (Fig. 4a–f). However, Cricocosmia lacks the additional dorsal row of sclerites and, rather than ellipsoidal plates as in Tabelliscolex, Cricocosmia sclerites are posteriorly directed, smoothly curved, hollow spines with an apex and a broad base. Regardless, the outer surface in both taxa bears hexagonally arranged tubercles, with the inner surface covered by corresponding pits, which are interpreted together as holes ornamenting the sclerite. This gives cricocosmiid sclerites a distinctive ‘net-like’, porous appearance (see Fig. 4) that is at least superficially similar to sclerites of the lobopodians Onychodictyon spp. (Topper et al. 2013), Microdictyon spp. (Topper et al. 2011; Pan et al. 2018) and seemingly H. hongmeia (Steiner et al. 2012), but not H. sparsa or H. fortis (see Caron et al. 2013). In addition, many other lobopodian taxa exhibit seriated nodes, spines and plates, but have not been investigated by scanning electron microscopy. There are, however, several aspects where cricocosmiid sclerites differ from lobopodian sclerites in structure. In Microdictyon the ‘net-like’ appearance of the sclerite is similarly produced by hexagonally arranged pore holes, but they vary in size towards the periphery (whereas cricocosmiid pores are consistent all over) and each pore is ornamented by a further hexagonal ring of nipple-like tubercles (Fig. 4g, h; see Topper et al. 2011; Pan et al. 2018). This can also be observed in Onychodictyon, although the secondary hexagons of ornamentation are not nipple-shaped, but scarped platforms (Topper et al. 2013).

Our phylogenetic analyses suggest that these differences in structure are explained by the fact that these sclerites are a result of evolutionary convergence (analogy), as opposed to shared inheritance (homology). Cricocosmiidae is deeply nested in Scalidophora in our trees and lobopodian taxa exhibiting seriated sclerites are a diverse polyphyletic assemblage of stem-group panarthropods, stem-group onychophorans and stem-group tardigrades. The most parsimonious explanation appears to be that seriated dorsolateral trunk structures are plesiomorphic to the panarthropods, but have also evolved independently within Scalidophora. Our phylogenetic interpretation does not necessarily preclude some of the ideas postulated by Dzik and Krumbiegel (1989), however, as the lower reaches of the panarthropod stem-group remain poorly resolved. The elongate, annulated trunks of lobopodians undoubtedly reveal that panarthropods are derived from worm-like ancestors, but no fossil has yet been constrained to stem-group Panarthropoda that lacks paired appendages, with a recent study rejecting Facivermis yunnanicus as a cycloneuralian-panarthropod transitionary example (Howard et al. 2020b). Our study does conclude, however, that cricocosmiids, like Facivermis, are also not representative of the cycloneuralian-panarthropod transition (i.e. stem-group Panarthropoda). Cricocosmiids and other palaeoscolecidomorphs exhibit an array of scalidophoran synapomorphies, in addition to the ecdysozoan plesiomorphies and homoplastic characters they share with lobopodian panarthropods. These scalidophoran and/or priapulan synapomorphies, including the retractable anterior introvert, multiple transverse rings of spinose circumoral armature on that proboscis (although their identity as hollow scalids is technically unconfirmed), the eversible pharynx and, at least in some Palaeoscolecida, the array of characteristic scalidophoran external sensory structures (e.g. flosculi, tumuli and tubuli; see Harvey et al. 2010).

Ventral projections in palaeoscolecidomorphs

Ventral spines and nodes were originally described in Tabelliscolex (Han et al. 2003a) and subsequently reported to occur in a sequence beneath every third set of sclerites (Huang 2005), although fossil material supporting this hypothesis was not figured. Han et al. (2007a) also reported ventral spines in Cricocosmia, but did not figure them, and compared them with the ventral spines of the extant meiofunal priapulan Tubilichus, interpreted as an indication of sexual dimorphism. We have demonstrated here that the hypothesis of Huang (2005) is likely to be the most correct, but the spines of Tabelliscolex are paired, curved and posteriorly directed (see Figs 5g–i, 6 and 8c). In addition, we report that similar, smaller paired ventral projections are also present in Cricocosmia and Mafangscolex. We interpret the ventral projections as a probable autapomorphy for Palaeoscolecidomorpha (see earlier discussion and Table 3). Incompletely preserved members of Palaeoscolecida from other localities also appear to demonstrate corroborating evidence of this character (Zhang and Pratt 1996; Hu et al. 2012). Hu et al. (2012) described large protuberances being irregularly present in the posterior ventral of Yunnanoscolex magnus and Wudingscolex sapushanensis from the Guanshan Lagerstätte.

The Wuliuan Burgess shale ‘archaeopriapulid’ Louisella pedunculata also has two longitudinal rows of long filamentous ventral spines/papillae (Conway Morris 1977). The shape and arrangement of these structures in Louisella have clear differences, however, running only along a posterior portion of the trunk and with no corresponding relation to the trunk annulations. As is the case for seriated sclerites, the phylogenetic distance between cricocosmiids (stem-group Priapulida) and lobopodians (stem-group Panarthropoda) means that even when a primary homology between ventral projections and lobopods is coded, these seriated ventrolateral structures optimize on the phylogeny as homoplastic. The ventral projections of Cambrian scalidophoran worms are convergent with panarthropod appendages, even to the degree that both show a correlated seriality with dorsolateral sclerites.

Palaeobiology of Tabelliscolex

Locomotion

Ventral projections of palaeoscolecidomorphs have previously been discussed with reference to sexual dimorphism, to increase friction in burrowing or for mucus secretion from glands (Han et al. 2007a). Given that ventral projections are observed in all specimens of Tabelliscolex, but are seen in only a minute fraction of the samples for Cricocosmia and Mafangscolex, relative abundance data are inconsistent with sexual dimorphism. We regard it as most plausible that the ventral projections of T. hexagonus were used to increase friction because these structures are larger and harder than those of other palaeoscolecidomorphs. The ventral projections of T. hexagonus might therefore have had the ability to support the body and be used in locomotion.

All priapulans move using the hydrostatic skeleton to push the body via peristalsis, but the movement of different species reveals some minor differences. This behaviour may result in distinctive probing burrows, which are comparable between present day priapulans and late Ediacaran–Cambrian trace fossils called treptichnids (Vannier et al. 2010; Kesidis et al. 2019), such as T. pedum, the occurrence of which defines the boundary between the Ediacaran and Cambrian (Buatois 2018). The complete movement cycle of Priapulus caudatus has four stages: (1) trunk peristaltic contraction, then propagating rapidly from posterior to anterior; (2) invagination; (3) powerful eversion; and (4) proboscis inflation (Vannier et al. 2010). The complete movement cycle of the Cambrian priapulan Eximipriapulus globocaudatus was inferred to involve seven stages (the introvert, trunk and terminal region have different shapes in different stages) (Ma et al. 2014a). The movement of the cricocosmiid T. hexagonus is hypothesized to have involved a double anchor fixing strategy like other palaeoscolecidomorphs, making use of both the proboscis scalids and the posterior hooks. T. hexagonus has a long trunk and a clear difference between the dorsum and abdomen. This species is therefore regarded as engaging in a demersal and epifaunal lifestyle. When it burrowed, the parts of the trunk close to the proboscis or the posterior end underwent peristaltic contraction. The ventral projections pointing posteriorly increased friction to prevent sliding and accelerate movement, as well as controlling the direction of movement.

Ontogeny and moulting

Information on moulting in fossil scalidophorans is often lacking, with fossils preserving an animal and its exuvium together being rare, because moult events were of short duration and the exuviae are thin (Daley and Drage 2016). Little is known about the ontogeny and moulting of palaeoscolecidomorphs specifically, aside from some isolated cuticular fragments apparently showing a double layer interpreted as having been buried shortly before ecdysis (Müller and Hinz-Schallreuter 1993). However, the moulting process has been described in phosphatic scalidophoran cuticle fragments from the Fortunian-aged Kuanchuanpu Formation of Shaanxi Province, China (Wang et al. 2019). These scalidophorans are thought to occupy a position in stem-group Scalidophora and to moult in a similar manner to extant priapulans, wherein the body is extricated smoothly from the old tubular cuticle or the exuvium is turned inside out like the finger of a glove (Wang et al. 2019). An early Cambrian stem-group loriciferan from Greenland appears to show a similar mode of ecdysis, with the body preserved emerging from an apparent tubular exuvium (Peel et al. 2013). Therefore it may be inferred that the process of ecdysis has been conserved across Scalidophora. However, cricocosmiid trunk sclerites, although resolved as convergent here, are highly similar to those of lobopodians, which may indicate additional complexity in the moulting process in cricocosmiids. Isolated lobopodian sclerites with two conjoined elements, wherein a larger sclerite underlies a smaller one, have been reported in Microdictyon spp. (Zhang and Aldridge 2007) and Onychodictyon spp. (Topper et al. 2013) from the Cambrian of China and Greenland, respectively. These conjoined specimens are interpreted as successive moults, indicating that the ecdysis of trunk sclerites may occur through a gradual replacement process (Topper et al. 2013).

T. hexagonus appears to be represented by at least one juvenile specimen (YKLP 11431, Fig. 1g). It is apparently smaller than the other specimens, but similar in morphology. Figure 1d and 1e show specimens that are different from the others and also the suspected outlines (long black arrow) of sclerites beside some sclerites may be indicative of moulting.

Mode of feeding

In most specimens of T. hexagonus, the intestine is completely flat and preserved in dark colour, whereas in one specimen the alimentary canal is preserved three-dimensionally (Figs 1d, e and 2c, d). Three-dimensional gut structures found in Burgess Shale-type arthropods have been suggested to be a taphonomic artefact due to either sediment infilling caused by panic behaviour during live burial (Edgecombe and Ramsköld 1999) or combined early diagenetic mineralization and severe weathering processes (Butterfield 2002; Vannier and Chen 2002). However, more recent studies rejected these scenarios in Chengjiang fossil preservation because geochemical analyses showed that these three-dimensional gut contents consist of genuine sediment with no evidence of mineralization (Hou et al. 2004; Bergström et al. 2007; Ma et al. 2014a). In the case of Chengjiang vermiform taxa, the three-dimensional structures often only occur partially in the gut and hence they are unlikely to be the result of sediment infill during live burial, but instead are indicative of at least occasional sediment digestion (Hou et al. 2004; Bergström et al. 2007; Ma et al. 2014a).

In contrast with the complex digestive systems seen in Cambrian arthropods (e.g. the presence of mid-gut glands/diverticulae), the palaeoscolecids and other Cambrian scalidophorans have a relatively simple alimentary tract (Vannier et al. 2014; Ortega-Hernández et al. 2018). However, the detailed alimentary tract morphologies and gut contents can shed light on their feeding ecology. The alimentary tract of most Cambrian scalidophoran worms is composed of a terminal mouth, a muscular pharynx lined with teeth and an elongated gut, whereas some species even have a division of oesophagus, mid-gut and hind gut (Ma et al. 2014a). Diverse skeletal animal fragments and cololites have been reported in the gut tracts of the stem-group priapulans Ottoia prolifica from the Burgess Shale (Vannier 2012), Singuuriqia simoni from Sirius Passet (Peel 2017) and Selkirkia sinica from Xiaoshiba (Lan et al. 2015), each instance interpreted as indicative of a generalist feeding regime including predation and deposit feeding, as in modern day macropriapulans. The data at hand do not allow us to infer whether T. hexagonus was a deposit feeder or a carnivore, or both, as no individual gut element could be confidently identified.

Conclusions

Tabelliscolex hexagonus is a palaeoscolecidomorph (stem-group Priapulida) belonging to the subgroup Cricocosmiidae, along with at least C. jinningensis and T. petiolaris. Tabelliscolex is distinguished from other cricocosmiids by the configuration and morphology of its sclerites and the correspondence of its well-developed ventral projections with the serially repeated sets of trunk sclerites compared with other taxa. Palaeoscolecidomorphs, and especially cricocosmiids, demonstrate a remarkable parallel evolution of ectodermal seriation that is strikingly similar to that of lobopodian panarthropods. Paired ventral projections that occur in a seriated pattern relative to the lateral/dorsolateral trunk sclerites are a topological mirror of the seriated trunk nodes/sclerites of lobopodians, which are positioned in a dorsolateral position above the ventrolateral lobopodous appendages in taxa ranging from stem-group panarthropods to stem-group onychophorans and stem-group tardigrades.

Seriation is more pervasive in Ecdysozoa than just Panarthropoda and Palaeoscolecidomorpha. Kinorhynchs have seriated cuticular structures (unpaired tergal plates and paired sternal plates) that are, in some cases, notably in the well-studied genus Echinoderes, correlated internally with seriated components of the trunk musculature and the nervous system. These include paired sets of dorsal, ventral, dorsoventral and diagonal muscles (Herranz et al. 2014) and seriated transverse neurites and ganglia (Herranz et al. 2019). As such, seriation is manifest in both the ectoderm and mesoderm; kinorhynchs exhibit covariation of seriated organ systems to a degree that they are not uncommonly described as segmented (but see Scholtz 2020 for a cogent distinction between seriation and segmentation). Seriation has multiple origins in Ecdysozoa and its different instances involve different character systems. Kinorhynchs and arthropods shared striated tergites, sternites, ganglia and trunk muscles, whereas palaeoscolecidomorphs and lobopodians shared seriated dorsolateral sclerites and ventrolateral projections.

Acknowledgements

We thank Javier Ortega-Hernández and another anonymous reviewer for constructive reviews that improved this paper.

Author contributions

: XS: conceptualization (equal), data curation (supporting), formal analysis (equal), investigation (equal), methodology (equal), writing – original draft (equal), writing – review & editing (equal); RJH: conceptualization (equal), data curation (supporting), formal analysis (equal), investigation (equal), methodology (equal), writing – original draft (equal), writing – review & editing (equal); GDE: conceptualization (supporting), formal analysis (supporting), investigation (supporting), methodology (supporting), supervision (supporting), writing – original draft (supporting), writing – review & editing (supporting); XH: data curation (supporting), funding acquisition (supporting), resources (supporting); XM: conceptualization (supporting), data curation (lead), funding acquisition (lead), investigation (supporting), methodology (supporting), project administration (lead), resources (lead), supervision (lead), writing – original draft (supporting), writing – review & editing (supporting).

Funding

Yunnan Provincial Research Grants (Grant Nos. 2015HA021, 2015HC029 and 2019DG050 for X-GH and X-YM) supported the Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology group, including fossil collecting, supporting students and research expenditure. NERC Independent Research Fellowship (Grant No. NE/L011751/1) provided salary and research expenditure for X-YM. NERC GW4 + Doctoral Training Partnership provided stipend and research expenditure for RJH. The funding bodies had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Scientific editing by Zongjun Yin

  • © 2021 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. ↵
    1. Aguinaldo, A.M.A.,
    2. Turbeville, J.M.,
    3. Linford, L.S.,
    4. Rivera, M.C.,
    5. Garey, J.R.,
    6. Raff, R.A. and
    7. Lake, J.A
    . 1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature, 387, 489–493, https://doi.org/10.1038/387489a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Bergström, J.,
    2. Hou, X-G. and
    3. Hålenius, U
    . 2007. Gut contents and feeding in the Cambrian arthropod Naraoia. GFF, 129, 71–76, https://doi.org/10.1080/11035890701292071
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Brock, G.A. and
    2. Cooper, B.J
    . 1993. Shelly fossils from the Early Cambrian (Toyonian) Wirrealpa, Aroona Creek, and Ramsay limestones of South Australia. Journal of Paleontology, 67, 758–787, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022336000037045
    OpenUrlAbstract
  4. ↵
    1. Buatois, L.A.
    2018. Treptichnus pedum and the Ediacaran–Cambrian boundary: significance and caveats. Geological Magazine, 155, 174–180, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756817000656
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Budd, G.E
    . 2001a. Tardigrades as ‘stem-group arthropods’: the evidence from the Cambrian fauna. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 240, 265–279, https://doi.org/10.1078/0044-5231-00034
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Budd, G.E
    . 2001b. Why are arthropods segmented? Evolution & Development, 3, 332–342, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-142X.2001.01041.x
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Budd, G.E.
    2003. Arthropods as ecdysozoans: the fossil evidence. In: Legakis, A., Sfenthourakis, S., Polymeni, R. and Thessalou-Leggaki, M. (eds) The New Panorama of Animal Evolution: Proceedings of the XVIII International Congress of Zoology, Athens, Greece, September 2000. Pensoft, Sofia, 479–487.
  8. ↵
    1. Budd, G.E. and
    2. Jensen, S.
    2003. The limitations of the fossil record and the dating of the origin of the Bilateria. In: Donoghue, P.C.J. and Smith, M.P. (eds) Telling the Evolutionary Time: Molecular Clocks and the Fossil Record. Taylor & Francis, London, 166–189.
  9. ↵
    1. Butterfield, N.J.
    2002. Leanchoilia guts and the interpretation of three-dimensional structures in Burgess Shale-type fossils. Paleobiology, 28, 155–171, https://doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373(2002)028<0155:LGATIO>2.0.CO;2
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Caron, J.-B.,
    2. Smith, M.R. and
    3. Harvey, T.H.P
    . 2013. Beyond the Burgess Shale: Cambrian microfossils track the rise and fall of hallucigeniid lobopodians. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280, 20131613, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1613
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Caron, J.-B. and
    2. Aria, C
    . 2020. The Collins’ monster, a spinous suspension-feeding lobopodian from the Cambrian Burgess Shale of British Columbia. Palaeontology, 63, 979–994, https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12499
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Conway Morris, S.
    1977. Fossil priapulid worms. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 20, 1–95.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Conway Morris, S.
    1993. The fossil record and the early evolution of the Metazoa. Nature, 361, 219–225, https://doi.org/10.1038/361219a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Conway Morris, S.
    1997. The cuticular structure of a 495-Myr-old type species of the fossil worm Palaeoscolex, P. piscatorum (?Priapulida). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 119, 69–82, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1997.tb00136.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Conway Morris, S. and
    2. Peel, J.S.
    2010. New palaeoscolecidan worms from the Lower Cambrian: Sirius Passet, Latham Shale and Kinzers Shale. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 55, 141–156, https://doi.org/10.4202/app.2009.0058
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Conway Morris, S. and
    2. Robinson, R.A.
    1986. Middle Cambrian priapulids and other soft-bodied fossils from Utah and Spain. The University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, 117, 1–22.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Daley, A.C. and
    2. Drage, H.B
    . 2016. The fossil record of ecdysis, and trends in the moulting behaviour of trilobites. Arthropod Structure & Development, 45, 71–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asd.2015.09.004
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Delage, Y. and
    2. Hérouard, H.
    1897. Les Vermidiens. In: Traite de Zoology Concrete. Vol. 5. Schleicher Freres, Paris, 1–372.
  19. ↵
    1. Dong, X-P
    . 2007. Developmental sequence of Cambrian embryo Markuelia. Chinese Science Bulletin, 52, 929–935, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-007-0137-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. ↵
    1. Dong, X.-P.,
    2. Donoghue, P.C.J.,
    3. Cheng, H. and
    4. Liu, J.-B
    . 2004. Fossil embryos from the middle and late Cambrian period of Hunan, south China. Nature, 427, 237–240, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02215
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Dong, X.-P.,
    2. Donoghue, P.C.J.,
    3. Cunningham, J.A.,
    4. Liu, J.-B. and
    5. Cheng, H
    . 2005. The anatomy, affinity and phylogenetic significance of Markuelia. Evolution & Development, 7, 468–482, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2005.05050.x
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Dong, X.-P.,
    2. Bengston, S. et al.
    2010. The anatomy, taphonomy, taxonomy and systematic affinity of Markuelia: early Cambrian to Early Ordovician scalidophorans. Palaeontology, 53, 1291–1314, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2010.01006.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Duan, B.,
    2. Dong, X.-P. and
    3. Donoghue, P.C.J
    . 2012. New palaeoscolecid worms from the Furongian (Upper Cambrian) of Hunan, South China: is Markuelia an embryonic palaeoscolecid? Palaeontology, 55, 613–622, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2012.01148.x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Dzik, J. and
    2. Krumbiegel, G
    . 1989. The oldest ‘onychophoran’ Xenusion: a link connecting phyla? Lethaia, 22, 169–182, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1989.tb01679.x
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    1. Edgecombe, G.D. and
    2. Ramsköld, L
    . 1999. Relationships of Cambrian Arachnata and the systematic position of Trilobita. Journal of Paleontology, 73, 263–287, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022336000027761
    OpenUrlAbstract
  26. ↵
    1. Farris, J.S.,
    2. Albert, V.A.,
    3. Källersjö, M.,
    4. Lipscomb, D. and
    5. Kluge, A.G
    . 1996. Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbour-joining. Cladistics, 12, 99–124, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.1996.tb00196.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. García-Bellido, D.,
    2. Paterson, J.R. and
    3. Edgecombe, G.D
    . 2013. Cambrian palaeoscolecids (Cycloneuralia) from Gondwana and reappraisal of species assigned to Palaeoscolex. Gondwana Research, 24, 780–795, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2012.12.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Giribet, G. and
    2. Edgecombe, G.D
    . 2017. Current understanding of Ecdysozoa and its internal phylogenetic relationships. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 57, 455–466, https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icx072
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Glaessner, M.F
    . 1979. Lower Cambrian Crustacea and annelid worms from Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Alcheringa, 3, 21–31, https://doi.org/10.1080/03115517908565437
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Goloboff, P.A. and
    2. Catalano, S.A
    . 2016. TNT version 1.5, including a full implementation of phylogenetic morphometrics. Cladistics, 32, 221–238, https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12160
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Goloboff, P.A.,
    2. Farris, J.S.,
    3. Källersjö, M.,
    4. Oxelman, B.,
    5. Ramírez, M.J. and
    6. Szumik, C.A
    . 2003. Improvements to resampling measures of group support. Cladistics, 19, 324–332, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2003.tb00376.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Goloboff, P.A.,
    2. Farris, J.S. and
    3. Nixon, K.C
    . 2008. TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis. Cladistics, 24, 774–786, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2008.00217.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Goloboff, P.A.,
    2. Torres Galvis, A. and
    3. Arias, J.S
    . 2018a. Parsimony and model-based phylogenetic methods for morphological data: comments on O'Reilly et al. Palaeontology, 61, 625–630, https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12353
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    1. Goloboff, P.A.,
    2. Torres Galvis, A. and
    3. Arias, J.S
    . 2018b. Weighted parsimony outperforms other methods of phylogenetic inference under models appropriate for morphology. Cladistics, 34, 407–437, https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12205
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. Harvey, T.H.P.,
    2. Dong, X.-P. and
    3. Donoghue, P.C.J
    . 2010. Are palaeoscolecids ancestral ecdysozoans? Evolution & Development, 12, 177–200, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2010.00403.x
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Han, J.,
    2. Zhang, X.-L.,
    3. Zhang, Z.-F. and
    4. Shu, D.-G
    . 2003a. A new platy-armoured worm from the Early Cambrian Chengjiang Lagerstätte, South China. Acta Geologica Sinica, 77, 1–6.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Han, J.,
    2. Zhang, X.-L.,
    3. Zhang, Z.-F. and
    4. Shu, D.-G.
    2003b. Discovery of the proboscis on Tylotites petiolaris. Journal of Northwestern University (Natural Science Edition), 36, 87–91.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Han, J.,
    2. Liu, J.-N.,
    3. Zhang, Z.-F.,
    4. Zhang, X.-L. and
    5. Shu, D.-G
    . 2007a. Trunk ornament on the palaeoscolecid worms Cricocosmia and Tabelliscolex from the early Cambrian Chengjiang deposits of China. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 52, 423–431.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Han, J.,
    2. Yang, Y.,
    3. Zhang, Z.-F.,
    4. Liu, J.-N. and
    5. Shu, D.-G
    . 2007b. New observations on the palaeoscolecid worm Tylotites petiolaris from the Cambrian Chengjiang Lagerstätte, south China. Paleontological Research, 11, 59–69, https://doi.org/10.2517/1342-8144(2007)11[59:NOOTPW]2.0.CO;2
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Herranz, M.,
    2. Boyle, M.J.,
    3. Pardos, F. and
    4. Neves, R.C
    . 2014. Comparative myoanatomy of Echinoderes (Kinorhyncha): a comprehensive investigation by CLSM and 3D reconstruction. Frontiers in Zoology, 11, 31, https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-11-31
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Herranz, M.,
    2. Leander, B.S.,
    3. Pardos, F. and
    4. Boyle, M.J
    . 2019. Neuroanatomy of mud dragons: a comprehensive view of the nervous system in Echinoderes (Kinorhyncha) by confocal laser scanning microscopy. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 19, 86, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-019-1405-4
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Hinz, I.,
    2. Kraft, P.,
    3. Mergl, M. and
    4. Müller, K.J
    . 1990. The problematic Hadimopanella, Kaimenella, Milaculum and Utahphospha identified as sclerites of Palaeoscolecida. Lethaia, 23, 217–221, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1990.tb01362.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Hoang, D.T.,
    2. Chernomor, O.,
    3. von Haeseler, A.,
    4. Minh, B.Q. and
    5. Vinh, L.S
    . 2018. UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 35, 518–522, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx281
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Holmes, J.D.,
    2. García-Bellido, D.C. and
    3. Lee, M.S.Y
    . 2018. Comparisons between Cambrian Lagerstätten assemblages using multivariate, parsimony and Bayesian methods. Gondwana Research, 55, 30–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2017.10.007
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Hou, X.-G. and
    2. Bergström, J.A.N
    . 1994. Palaeoscolecid worms may be nematomorphs rather than annelids. Lethaia, 27, 11–17, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1994.tb01548.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  45. ↵
    1. Hou, X.-G. and
    2. Sun, W.-G
    . 1988. Discovery of Chengjiang fauna at Meishucun, Jinning, Yunnan. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, 28, 32–41.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Hou, X.-G.,
    2. Bergström, J.,
    3. Wang, H.-F.,
    4. Feng, X.-H. and
    5. Chen, A.-L.
    1999. The Chengjiang Fauna – Exceptionally Well-Preserved Animals from 530 Million Years Ago. Yunnan Science and Technology Press, Kunming.
  47. ↵
    1. Hou, X.-G.,
    2. Ma, X.-Y.,
    3. Zhao, J. and
    4. Bergström, J
    . 2004. The lobopodian Paucipodia inermis from the Lower Cambrian Chengjiang fauna, Yunnan, China. Lethaia, 37, 235–244, https://doi.org/10.1080/00241160410006555
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  48. ↵
    1. Hou, X.-G.,
    2. Siveter, D.J. et al.
    2017. The Cambrian Fossils of Chengjiang, China: the Flowering of Early Animal Life, 2nd edn. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester.
  49. ↵
    1. Howard, R.J.,
    2. Edgecombe, G.D.,
    3. Shi, X.-M.,
    4. Hou, X.-G. and
    5. Ma, X.-Y
    . 2020a. Ancestral morphology of Ecdysozoa constrained by an early Cambrian stem group ecdysozoan. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 20, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-020-01720-6
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Howard, R.J.,
    2. Hou, X.-G.,
    3. Edgecombe, G.D.,
    4. Salge, T.,
    5. Shi, X.-M. and
    6. Ma, X.-Y
    . 2020b. A tube-dwelling Early Cambrian Lobopodian. Current Biology, 30, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.10.048
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. ↵
    1. Hu, S.-X.,
    2. Li, Y. et al.
    2008. New record of Palaeoscolecids from the Early Cambrian of Yunnan, China. Acta Geologica Sinica, 82, 244–248.
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. Hu, S.-X,
    2. Steiner, M. et al.
    2012. A new priapulid assemblage from the early Cambrian Guanshan fossil Lagerstätte of SW China. Bulletin of Geosciences, 87, 93–106.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Huang, D.-Y.
    2005. Early Cambrian worms from SW China: morphology, systematics, lifestyle and evolutionary significance. PhD thesis, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1.
  54. ↵
    1. Huang, D.-Y.,
    2. Chen, J.-Y.,
    3. Zhu, M.-Y. and
    4. Zhao, F.-C
    . 2014. The burrow dwelling behavior and locomotion of palaeoscolecidian worms: new fossil evidence from the Cambrian Chengjiang fauna. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 398, 154–164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.11.004
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. ↵
    1. Kesidis, G.,
    2. Slater, B.J.,
    3. Jensen, S. and
    4. Budd, G.E
    . 2019. Caught in the act: priapulid burrowers in early Cambrian substrates. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286, 20182505, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2505
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Lan, T.,
    2. Yang, J.,
    3. Hou, J.-B. and
    4. Zhang, X.-G
    . 2015. The feeding behaviour of the Cambrian tubiculous priapulid Selkirkia. Lethaia, 48, 125–132, https://doi.org/10.1111/let.12093
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Lewis, P.O
    . 2001. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Systematic Biology, 50, 913–925, https://doi.org/10.1080/106351501753462876
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. ↵
    1. Liu, J.-N.,
    2. Shu, D.-G.,
    3. Han, J.,
    4. Zhang, Z.-F. and
    5. Zhang, X.-L
    . 2008. The lobopod Onychodictyon from the Lower Cambrian Chengjiang Lagerstätte revisited. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 53, 285–292, https://doi.org/10.4202/app.2008.0209
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  59. ↵
    1. Liu, Y.-H.,
    2. Xiao, S.-H.,
    3. Shao, T.-Q.,
    4. Broce, J. and
    5. Zhang, H.-Q
    . 2014. The oldest known priapulid-like scalidophoran animal and its implications for the early evolution of cycloneuralians and ecdysozoans. Evolution & Development, 16, 155–165, https://doi.org/10.1111/ede.12076
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. ↵
    1. Luo, H.-L.,
    2. Hu, S.-X.,
    3. Chen, L.-Z.,
    4. Zhang, S.-S. and
    5. Tao, Y.-H.
    1999. Early Cambrian Chengjiang Fauna from Kunming Region, China. Yunnan Science and Technology Press, Kunming.
  61. ↵
    1. Luo, H.-L.,
    2. Hu, S.-X.,
    3. Han, J.,
    4. Zhang, S.-S.,
    5. Zhan, D.-Q.,
    6. Lu, Y.-X. and
    7. Yao, X.-Y.
    2014. Restudy of palaeoscolecidians from the Meishucun Section, Jinning, Yunnan, China. Journal of Northwest University (Natural Science Edition), 44, 947–953.
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    1. Ma, X-Y.,
    2. Hou, X-G. and
    3. Bergström, J
    . 2009. Morphology of Luolishania longicruris (Lower Cambrian, Chengjiang Lagerstätte, SW China) and the phylogenetic relationships within lobopodians. Arthropod Structure & Development, 38, 271–291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asd.2009.03.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  63. ↵
    1. Ma, X.-Y.,
    2. Aldridge, R.J.,
    3. Siveter, D.J.,
    4. Siveter, D.J.,
    5. Hou, X.-G. and
    6. Edgecombe, G.D
    . 2014a. A new exceptionally preserved Cambrian priapulid from the Chengjiang Lagerstätte. Journal of Paleontology, 88, 371–384, https://doi.org/10.1666/13-082
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. ↵
    1. Ma, X.-Y.,
    2. Edgecombe, G.D.,
    3. Legg, D.A. and
    4. Hou, X.-G
    . 2014b. The morphology and phylogenetic position of the Cambrian lobopodian Diania cactiformis. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 12, 445–457, https://doi.org/10.1080/14772019.2013.770418
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    1. Minh, B.Q.,
    2. Nguyen, M.A.T. and
    3. von Haeseler, A
    . 2013. Ultrafast approximation for phylogenetic bootstrap. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 30, 1188–1195, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  66. ↵
    1. Müller, K.J. and
    2. Hinz-Schallreuter, I
    . 1993. Palaeoscolecid worms from the Middle Cambrian of Australia. Palaeontology, 36, 549–592.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  67. ↵
    1. Murdock, D.J.E.,
    2. Gabbott, S.E. and
    3. Purnell, M.A
    . 2016. The impact of taphonomic data on phylogenetic resolution: Helenodora inopinata (Carboniferous, Mazon Creek Lagerstätte) and the onychophoran stem lineage. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 16, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-016-0582-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. ↵
    1. Nguyen, L.T.,
    2. Schmidt, H.A.,
    3. von Haeseler, A. and
    4. Minh, B.Q
    . 2015. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 32, 268–274, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msu300
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Nixon, K.C.
    2002. WinClada, Version 1.00.08 (published by the author, Ithaca, NY).
  70. ↵
    1. O'Reilly, J.E.,
    2. Puttick, M.N. et al.
    2016 Bayesian methods outperform parsimony but at the expense of precision in the estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data. Biology Letters, 12, 20160081, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0081
    OpenUrl
  71. ↵
    1. O'Reilly, J.E.,
    2. Puttick, M.N.,
    3. Pisani, D. and
    4. Donoghue, P.C.J
    . 2018a. Probabilistic methods surpass parsimony when assessing clade support in phylogenetic analyses of discrete morphological data. Palaeontology, 61, 105–118, https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12330
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. O'Reilly, J.E.,
    2. Puttick, M.N.,
    3. Pisani, D. and
    4. Donoghue, P.C.J
    . 2018b. Empirical realism of simulated data is more important than the model used to generate it: a reply to Goloboff et al. Palaeontology, 61, 631–635, https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12361
    OpenUrl
  73. ↵
    1. Ortega-Hernández, J.,
    2. Fu, D.,
    3. Zhang, X.-G. and
    4. Shu, D.-G
    . 2018. Gut glands illuminate trunk segmentation in Cambrian fuxianhuiids. Current Biology, 28, R146–R147, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.040
    OpenUrl
  74. ↵
    1. Pan, B.,
    2. Topper, T.P.,
    3. Skovsted, C.B.,
    4. Miao, L.-Y. and
    5. Li, G.-X
    . 2018. Occurrence of Microdictyon from the lower Cambrian Xinji Formation along the southern margin of the North China Platform. Journal of Paleontology, 92, 59–70, https://doi.org/10.1017/jpa.2017.47
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. Peel, J.S
    . 2017. Feeding behaviour of a new worm (Priapulida) from the Sirius Passet Lagerstätte (Cambrian Series 2, Stage 3) of North Greenland (Laurentia). Palaeontology, 60, 795–805, https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12316
    OpenUrl
  76. ↵
    1. Peel, J.S.,
    2. Stein, M. and
    3. Kristensen, R.M
    . 2013. Life cycle and morphology of a Cambrian stem-lineage loriciferan. PLoS One, 8, e73583, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073583
    OpenUrl
  77. ↵
    1. Puttick, M.N.,
    2. O'Reilly, J.E. et al.
    2017. Parsimony and maximum-likelihood phylogenetic analyses of morphology do not generally integrate uncertainty in inferring evolutionary history: a response to Brown et al. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biology, 284, 20171636, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1636
    OpenUrl
  78. ↵
    1. Puttick, M.N.,
    2. O'Reilly, J.E.,
    3. Pisani, D. and
    4. Donoghue, P.C.J
    . 2019. Probabilistic methods outperform parsimony in the phylogenetic analysis of data simulated without a probabilistic model. Palaeontology, 62, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12388
    OpenUrl
  79. ↵
    1. Ronquist, F.,
    2. Teslenko, M. et al.
    2012. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology, 61, 539–542, https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys029
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Scholtz, G.
    2020. Segmentation—a zoological concept of seriality. In: Chipman, A.D. (ed.) Cellular Processes in Segmentation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 3–25.
  81. ↵
    1. Shao, T.-Q.,
    2. Liu, Y.-H.,
    3. Wang, Q.,
    4. Zhang, H.-Q.,
    5. Tang, H.-H. and
    6. Li, Y
    . 2016. New material of the oldest known scalidophoran animal Eopriapulites sphinx. Palaeoworld, 25, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palwor.2015.07.003
    OpenUrl
  82. ↵
    1. Siveter, D.J.,
    2. Briggs, D.E.G.,
    3. Siveter, D.J.,
    4. Sutton, M.D. and
    5. Legg, D
    . 2018. A three-dimensionally preserved lobopodian from the Herefordshire (Silurian) Lagerstätte, UK. Royal Society Open Science, 5, 172101, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172101
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  83. ↵
    1. Slater, B.J.,
    2. Harvey, T.H.P.,
    3. Guilbaud, R. and
    4. Butterfield, N.J
    . 2017. A cryptic record of Burgess Shale-type diversity from the early Cambrian of Baltica. Palaeontology, 60, 117–140, https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12273
    OpenUrl
  84. ↵
    1. Smith, M.R
    . 2015. A palaeoscolecid from the Burgess Shale. Palaeontology, 58, 973–979, https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.12210
    OpenUrl
  85. ↵
    1. Smith, M.R. and
    2. Caron, J.B
    . 2015. Hallucigenia’s head and the pharyngeal armature of early ecdysozoans. Nature, 523, 75–78, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14573
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Smith, M.R. and
    2. Ortega-Hernández, J
    . 2014. Hallucigenia’s onychophoran-like claws and the case for Tactopoda. Nature, 514, 363–366, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13576
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  87. ↵
    1. Steiner, M.,
    2. Hu, S.-H.,
    3. Liu, J.-N. and
    4. Keupp, H
    . 2012. A new species of Hallucigenia from the Cambrian Stage 4 Wulongqing Formation of Yunnan (South China) and the structure of sclerites in lobopodians. Bulletin of Geosciences, 87, 107–124.
    OpenUrl
  88. ↵
    1. Streng, M.,
    2. Ebbestad, J.O.R. and
    3. Berg-Madsen, V
    . 2017. Cambrian palaeoscolecids (Cycloneuralia) of southern Scandinavia. Papers in Palaeontology, 3, 21–48, https://doi.org/10.1002/spp2.1067
    OpenUrl
  89. ↵
    1. Sun, W.-G. and
    2. Hou, X.-G
    . 1987. Early Cambrian worms from Chengjiang, Yunnan, China: Maotianshania sp. nov. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, 26, 300–305.
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    1. Topper, T.P.,
    2. Brock, G.A.,
    3. Skovsted, C.B. and
    4. Paterson, J.R
    . 2010. Palaeoscolecid scleritome fragments with Hadimopanella plates from the early Cambrian of South Australia. Geological Magazine, 147, 86–97, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756809990082
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. ↵
    1. Topper, T.P.,
    2. Brock, G.A.,
    3. Skovsted, C.B. and
    4. Paterson, J.R.
    2011. Microdictyon plates from the lower Cambrian Ajax Limestone of South Australia: implications for species taxonomy and diversity. Alcheringa, 35, 427–443, https://doi.org/10.1080/03115518.2011.533972
    OpenUrl
  92. ↵
    1. Topper, T.P.,
    2. Skovsted, C.B.,
    3. Peel, J.S. and
    4. Harper, D.A
    . 2013. Moulting in the lobopodian Onychodictyon from the lower Cambrian of Greenland. Lethaia, 46, 490–495, https://doi.org/10.1111/let.12026
    OpenUrl
  93. ↵
    1. Val'kov, A.K.
    1983. Rasprostranenie drevnejshikh skeletnykh organizmovi korrelyatsiya nizhnej granitsy kembriya v yugo-vostochnoj chasti Si-birskoj platformy. In: Khomentovsky, V.V., Yakshin, M.S. and Karlova, G.A. (eds) Pozdnij Dokembrij I Rannij Paleozoj Sibiri, Vendskieotlozheniya. Institut Geologii I Geofiziki, Sibirskoe Otdelenie, Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 37–48.
  94. ↵
    1. Vannier, J
    . 2012. Gut contents as direct indicators for trophic relationships in the Cambrian marine ecosystem. PLoS One, 7, e52200, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052200
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Vannier, J. and
    2. Chen, J.Y
    . 2002. Digestive system and feeding mode in Cambrian naraoiid arthropods. Lethaia, 35, 107–120.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  96. ↵
    1. Vannier, J.,
    2. Calandra, I.,
    3. Gaillard, C. and
    4. Żylińska, A.
    2010. Priapulid worms: pioneer horizontal burrowers at the Precambrian–Cambrian boundary. Geology, 38, 711–714, https://doi.org/10.1130/G30829.1
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  97. ↵
    1. Vannier, J.,
    2. Liu, J.-N.,
    3. Lerosey-Aubril, R.,
    4. Vinther, J. and
    5. Daley, A.C
    . 2014. Sophisticated digestive systems in early arthropods. Nature Communications, 5, 3641, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4641
    OpenUrl
  98. ↵
    1. Wang, D.,
    2. Vannier, J. et al.
    2019. Origin of ecdysis: fossil evidence from 535-million-year-old scalidophoran worms. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286, 20190791, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0791
    OpenUrl
  99. ↵
    1. Webster, B.L.,
    2. Copley, R.R. et al.
    2006. Mitogenomics and phylogenomics reveal priapulid worms as extant models of the ancestral Ecdysozoan. Evolution & Development, 8, 502–510, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2006.00123.x
    OpenUrl
  100. ↵
    1. Whittard, W.F.
    1953. Palaeoscolex piscatorum gen. et sp. nov., a worm from the Tremadocian of Shropshire. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, London, 109, 125–136, https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.JGS.1953.109.01-04.07
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  101. ↵
    1. Whittaker, A.F.,
    2. Jamison, P.G.,
    3. Schiffbauer, J.D. and
    4. Kimmig, J
    . 2020. Re-description of the Spence Shale palaeoscolecids in light of new morphological features with comments on palaeoscolecid taxonomy and taphonomy. PalZ, 94, 661–764, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12542-020-00516-9
    OpenUrl
  102. ↵
    1. Whittington, H.B
    . 1978. The Lobopod animal Aysheaia pedunculata Walcott, Middle Cambrian, Burgess Shale, British Columbia. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society London B: Biological Sciences, 284, 165–197, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1978.0061
    OpenUrl
  103. ↵
    1. Wills, M.A
    . 1998. Cambrian and recent disparity: the picture from priapulids. Paleobiology, 24, 177–199.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  104. ↵
    1. Wills, M.A.,
    2. Gerber, S.,
    3. Ruta, M. and
    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, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02586.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Yang, J.,
    2. Ortega-Hernández, J.,
    3. Gerber, S.,
    4. Butterfield, N.J.,
    5. Hou, J.,
    6. Lan, T. and
    7. Zhang, X.-G
    . 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, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505596112
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  106. ↵
    1. Yang, J.,
    2. Smith, M.R.,
    3. Zhang, X.-G. and
    4. Yang, X.-Y
    . 2020. Introvert and pharynx of Mafangscolex, a Cambrian palaeoscolecid. Geological Magazine, 157, 2044–2050, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756820000308
    OpenUrl
  107. ↵
    1. Yang, Y-N. and
    2. Zhang, X-L
    . 2016. The Cambrian palaeoscolecid Wronascolex from the Shipai Fauna (Cambrian Series 2, Stage 4) of the Three Gorges area, South China. Papers in Palaeontology, 2, 555–568, https://doi.org/10.1002/spp2.1054
    OpenUrl
  108. ↵
    1. Zhang, H.-Q.,
    2. Xiao, S.-H. et al.
    2015. Armored kinorhynch-like scalidophoran animals from the early Cambrian. Scientific Reports, 5, 16521, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16521
    OpenUrl
  109. ↵
    1. Zhang, X.-G. and
    2. Aldridge, R.J
    . 2007. Development and diversification of trunk plates of the lower Cambrian lobopodians. Palaeontology, 50, 401–415, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00634.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  110. ↵
    1. Zhang, X.-G. and
    2. Pratt, B.R
    . 1996. Early Cambrian palaeoscolecid cuticles from Shaanxi, China. Journal of Paleontology, 70, 275–279, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022336000023350
    OpenUrlAbstract
  111. ↵
    1. Zhang, X.-G.,
    2. Smith, M.R.,
    3. Yang, J. and
    4. Hou, J.-B
    . 2016. Onychophoran-like musculature in a phosphatized Cambrian lobopodian. Biology Letters, 12, 20160492, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0492
    OpenUrl
  112. ↵
    1. Zhuravlev, A.Y.,
    2. Vintaned, J.A.G. and
    3. Liñán, E.
    2011. The Palaeoscolecida and the evolution of Ecdysozoa. Palaeontographica Canadiana, 31, 177–204.
    OpenUrl
  113. ↵
    1. Zrzavý, J
    . 2003. Gastrotricha and metazoan phylogeny. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 32, 61–82.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the Geological Society: 179 (2)
Journal of the Geological Society
Volume 179, Issue 2
March 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation tools

Tabelliscolex (Cricocosmiidae: Palaeoscolecidomorpha) from the early Cambrian Chengjiang Biota and the evolution of seriation in Ecdysozoa

Xiaomei Shi, Richard J. Howard, Gregory D. Edgecombe, Xianguang Hou and Xiaoya Ma
Journal of the Geological Society, 179, jgs2021-060, 6 October 2021, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2021-060
Xiaomei Shi
1Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology, Institute of Palaeontology, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
2MEC International Joint Laboratory for Palaeobiology and Palaeoenvironment, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
Roles: [Conceptualization (Equal)], [Data curation (Supporting)], [Formal analysis (Equal)], [Investigation (Equal)], [Methodology (Equal)], [Writing – original draft (Equal)], [Writing – review & editing (Equal)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Xiaomei Shi
Richard J. Howard
2MEC International Joint Laboratory for Palaeobiology and Palaeoenvironment, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
3Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Truro TR10 9TA, UK
4Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
Roles: [Conceptualization (Equal)], [Data curation (Supporting)], [Formal analysis (Equal)], [Investigation (Equal)], [Methodology (Equal)], [Writing – original draft (Equal)], [Writing – review & editing (Equal)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Richard J. Howard
Gregory D. Edgecombe
2MEC International Joint Laboratory for Palaeobiology and Palaeoenvironment, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
4Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK
Roles: [Conceptualization (Supporting)], [Formal analysis (Supporting)], [Investigation (Supporting)], [Methodology (Supporting)], [Supervision (Lead)], [Writing – original draft (Supporting)], [Writing – review & editing (Supporting)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gregory D. Edgecombe
Xianguang Hou
1Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology, Institute of Palaeontology, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
2MEC International Joint Laboratory for Palaeobiology and Palaeoenvironment, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
Roles: [Data curation (Supporting)], [Funding acquisition (Supporting)], [Resources (Supporting)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xiaoya Ma
1Yunnan Key Laboratory for Palaeobiology, Institute of Palaeontology, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
2MEC International Joint Laboratory for Palaeobiology and Palaeoenvironment, Yunnan University, Chenggong Campus, Kunming 650504, China
3Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Truro TR10 9TA, UK
Roles: [Conceptualization (Supporting)], [Data curation (Lead)], [Funding acquisition (Lead)], [Investigation (Supporting)], [Methodology (Supporting)], [Project administration (Lead)], [Resources (Lead)], [Supervision (Lead)], [Writing – original draft (Supporting)], [Writing – review & editing (Supporting)]
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Xiaoya Ma
  • For correspondence: [email protected] [email protected]

Citation Manager Formats

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

Tabelliscolex (Cricocosmiidae: Palaeoscolecidomorpha) from the early Cambrian Chengjiang Biota and the evolution of seriation in Ecdysozoa

Xiaomei Shi, Richard J. Howard, Gregory D. Edgecombe, Xianguang Hou and Xiaoya Ma
Journal of the Geological Society, 179, jgs2021-060, 6 October 2021, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2021-060
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.
Tabelliscolex (Cricocosmiidae: Palaeoscolecidomorpha) from the early Cambrian Chengjiang Biota and the evolution of seriation in Ecdysozoa
(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
    • Materials and methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgements
    • Author contributions
    • Funding
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Similar Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • The Ediacaran origin of Ecdysozoa: integrating fossil and phylogenomic data
  • Palaeolatitudinal distribution of the Ediacaran macrobiota
Show more: Thematic collection: Advances in the Cambrian Explosion
  • Most read
  • Most cited
Loading
  • The largest arthropod in Earth history: insights from newly discovered Arthropleura remains (Serpukhovian Stainmore Formation, Northumberland, 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
  • Meteorites that produce K-feldspar-rich ejecta blankets correspond to mass extinctions
More...

Journal of the Geological Society

  • About the journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Submit a manuscript
  • Author information
  • Supplementary Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Pay per view
  • Alerts & RSS
  • 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