Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:12:48.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphology of Anomalocaris canadensis from the Burgess Shale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Allison C. Daley  and
Gregory D. Edgecombe
Allison C. Daley
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK, ; School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queen's Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK
Gregory D. Edgecombe
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK, ;
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent description of the oral cone of Anomalocaris canadensis from the Burgess Shale (Cambrian Series 3, Stage 5) highlighted significant differences from published accounts of this iconic species, and prompts a new evaluation of its morphology as a whole. All known specimens of A. canadensis, including previously unpublished material, were examined with the aim of providing a cohesive morphological description of this stem lineage arthropod. In contrast to previous descriptions, the dorsal surface of the head is shown to be covered by a small, oval carapace in close association with paired stalked eyes, and the ventral surface bears only the triradial oral cone, with no evidence of a hypostome or an anterior sclerite. The frontal appendages reveal new details of the arthrodial membranes and a narrower cross-section in dorsal view than previously reconstructed. The posterior body region reveals a complex suite of digestive, respiratory, and locomotory characters that include a differentiated foregut and hindgut, a midgut with paired glands, gill-like setal blades, and evidence of muscle bundles and struts that presumably supported the swimming movement of the body flaps. The tail fan includes a central blade in addition to the previously described three pairs of lateral blades. Some of these structures have not been identified in other anomalocaridids, making Anomalocaris critical for understanding the functional morphology of the group as a whole and corroborating its arthropod affinities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 88 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 68 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bengtson, S. 2000. Teasing fossils out of shales with cameras and computers. Palaeontologia Electronica, 3:1–14.Google Scholar
Bergström, J. 1986. Opabinia and Anomalocaris, Unique Cambrian Arthropods. Lethaia, 19:241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergström, J. 1987. The Cambrian Opabinia and Anomalocaris . Lethaia, 20:187–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G. 1979. Anomalocaris, the largest known Cambrian arthropod. Palaeontology, 22:631–663.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G. and Mount, J. D. 1982. The occurrence of the giant arthropod Anomalocaris in the Lower Cambrian of Southern California, and the overall distribution of the genus. Journal of Paleontology, 56:1,112–1,118.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G. and Nedin, C. 1997. The taphonomy and affinities of the problematic fossil Myoscolex from the lower Cambrian Emu Bay Shale of South Australia. Journal of Paleontology, 71:22–32.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G. and Robison, R. A. 1984. Exceptionally preserved nontrilobite arthropods and Anomalocaris from the middle Cambrian of Utah. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, 111:1–23.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G., Erwin, D. H., and Collier, F. J. 1994. The Fossils of the Burgess Shale. Smithsonian Books, Washington, 238 p.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G., Lieberman, B. S., Hendricks, J. R., Halgedahl, S. L., and Jarrard, R. D. 2008. Middle Cambrian arthropods from Utah. Journal of Paleontology, 82:238–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budd, G. E. 1998. Arthropod body-plan evolution in the Cambrian with an example from anomalocaridid muscle. Lethaia, 31:197–210.Google Scholar
Budd, G. E. 2008. Head structure in upper stem-group euarthropods. Palaeontology, 51:561–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, N. J. 1990. Organic preservation of non-mineralizing organisms and the taphonomy of the Burgess Shale. Paleobiology, 16:272–286.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. J. 2002. Leanchoilia guts and the interpretation of three-dimensional structures in Burgess Shale-type fossils. Paleobiology, 28:155–171.Google Scholar
Caron, J.-B., Gaines, R. R., Mángano, M. G., Streng, M., and Daley, A. C. 2010. A new Burgess Shale-type assemblage from the “thin” Stephen Formation of the southern Canadian Rockies. Geology, 38:811–814.Google Scholar
Chen, J., Ramsköld, L., and Zhou, G. Q. 1994. Evidence for monophyly and arthropod affinity of Cambrian giant predators. Science, 264:1304–1308.Google Scholar
Collins, D. 1996. The “evolution” of Anomalocaris and its classification in the arthropod class Dinocarida (nov) and order Radiodonta (nov). Journal of Paleontology, 70:280–293.Google Scholar
Daley, A. C. and Bergström, J. 2012. The oral cone of Anomalocaris is not a classic “peytoia.” Naturwissenschaften, 99:501–504.Google Scholar
Daley, A. C. and Budd, G. E. 2010. New anomalocaridid appendages from the Burgess Shale, Canada. Palaeontology, 53:721–738.Google Scholar
Daley, A. C., Budd, G. E., Caron, J.-B., Edgecombe, G. D., and Collins, D. 2009. The Burgess Shale anomalocaridid Hurdia and its significance for early euarthropod evolution. Science, 323:1,597–1,600.Google Scholar
Daley, A. C., Budd, G. E., and Caron, J.-B. 2013a. The morphology and systematics of the anomalocaridid Hurdia from the middle Cambrian of British Columbia and Utah. Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 11.Google Scholar
Daley, A. C., Paterson, J. R., Edgecombe, G. D., García-Bellido, D. C., and Jago, J. B. 2013b. New anatomical information on Anomalocaris from the Cambrian Emu Bay Shale of South Australia and a reassessment of it inferred predatory habits. Palaeontology, 56:971–990.Google Scholar
Edgecombe, G. D. 2009. Palaeontological and molecular evidence linking arthropods, onychophorans and other Ecdysozoa. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2:178–190.Google Scholar
Fletcher, T. P. and Collins, D. H. 1998. The middle Cambrian Burgess Shale and its relationship to the Stephen Formation in the southern Canadian Rocky Mountains. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 35:413–436.Google Scholar
Haug, J. T, Waloszek, D., Maas, A., Liu, Y., and Haug, C. 2012. Functional morphology, ontogeny and evolution of mantis shrimp-like predators in the Cambrian. Palaeontology, 55:369–399.Google Scholar
Henriksen, K. L. 1928. Critical notes upon some Cambrian arthropods described by Charles D. Walcott. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening, 86:1–20.Google Scholar
Hou, X. and Bergström, J. 2006. Dinocarids—anomalous arthropods or arthropod-like worms, p. 139–158, 847–850. In Rong, J., Fang, Z., Zhou, Z., Zhan, R., Wang, X., and Yuan, X. (eds.), Originations, Radiations and Biodiversity Changes–Evidences From The Chinese Fossil Record. Science Press, Beijing.Google Scholar
Hou, X., Bergström, J., and Ahlberg, P. 1995. Anomalocaris and other large animals in the lower Cambrian Chengjiang Fauna of southwest China. GFF, 117:163–183.Google Scholar
Legg, D. 2013. Multi-segmented arthropods from the middle Cambrian of British Columbia (Canada). Journal of Paleontology, 87:493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legg, D. A., Sutton, M. D., Edgecombe, G. D., and Caron, J.-B. 2012. Cambrian bivalved arthropod reveals origin of arthrodisation. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B (Biological Sciences), 279:4699–4704.Google Scholar
O'Brien, L. and Caron, J.-B. 2012. A new stalked filter-feeder from the middle Cambrian Burgess Shale, British Columbia, Canada. PLoS ONE, 7:1–21.Google Scholar
Paterson, J. R., García-Bellido, D. C., Lee, M. S. Y., Brock, G. A., Jago, J. B., and Edgecombe, G. D. 2011. Acute vision in the giant Cambrian predator Anomalocaris and the origin of compound eyes. Nature, 480:237–240.Google Scholar
Raymond, P. E. 1935. Leanchoilia and other mid-Cambrian Arthropoda. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 76:205–230.Google Scholar
Resser, C. E. 1929. New lower and middle Cambrian Crustacea. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 76:1–18.Google Scholar
Rolfe, W. D. I. 1969. Phyllocarida, p. 269–331. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part R. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Rudkin, D. M. 2009. The Mount Stephen Trilobite Beds, p. 91–102. In Caron, J.-B. and Rudkin, D. M. (eds.), A Burgess Shale Primer—History, Geology and Research Highlights. The Burgess Shale Consortium, Toronto.Google Scholar
Schönemann, B. and Clarkson, E. N. K. 2012. Functional analysis of lower Cambrian eye system. Palaeontographica A, 297:123–149.Google Scholar
Siebold, C. Von, Th. 1848. Lehrbuch det vergleichenden Anatomie der Wirbellosen Thiere. Veit and Comp., Berlin, 679 p.Google Scholar
Simonetta, A. M. and Delle Cave, L. 1975. The Cambrian non trilobite arthropods from the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. A study of their comparative morphology, taxonomy and evolutionary significance. Palaeontographia Italica, 69:1–37.Google Scholar
Stein, M. 2010. A new arthropod from the early Cambrian of North Greenland, with a ‘great appendage'-like antennula. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 158:477–500.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y. and Bergström, J. 2008. Respiration in trilobites: a reevaluation. GFF, 130:211–229.Google Scholar
Vannier, J. 2009. L'explosion cambrienne ou l'émergence des ecosystèmes modernes. Comptes Rendus Palevol, 8:133–154.Google Scholar
Vannier, J. and Chen, J. 2005. Early Cambrian food chain: new evidence from fossil aggregates in the Maotianshan Shale Biota, SW China. Palaios, 20:3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Roy, P. and Briggs, D. E. G. 2011. A giant Ordovician anomalocaridid. Nature, 473:510–513.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1908. Mount Stephen rocks and fossils. Canadian Alpine Journal, 1:232–248.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1911. Cambrian geology and paleontology. II. Middle Cambrian holothurians and medusae. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 57:41–68.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1912. Middle Cambrian Branchiopoda, Malacostraca, Trilobita, and Merostomata. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 57:145–228.Google Scholar
Whiteaves, J. F. 1892. Description of a new genus and species of Phyllocarid Crustacea from the middle Cambrian of Mount Stephen, B.C. Canadian Record of Science, 5:205–208.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. and Briggs, D. E. G. 1982. A new conundrum from the middle Cambrian Burgess Shale. Proceedings of the Third North American Paleontological Convention, Montreal, 2:573–575.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. and Briggs, D. E. G. 1985. The largest Cambrian animal, Anomalocaris, Burgess Shale, British Columbia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 309:569–609.Google Scholar
Woodward, H. 1902. The Canadian Rockies—Part 1. On a collection of Middle Cambrian fossils obtained by Edward Whymper, Esq., F.R.G.S., from Mount Stephen, British Columbia. Geological Magazine, 9:502–505, 529–544.Google Scholar