Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T04:27:05.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary Dissent - Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology. C. R. C. Paul and A. B. Smith, editors. Published for the Liverpool Geological Society by Clarendon Press; Oxford. 1988. ix + 373 pp. $115.00

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Rich Mooi
Rich Mooi*
Affiliation:
Department of Inverebrate Zoology, NHB-163, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , Fall 1989 , pp. 437 - 444
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

Literature Cited

Alexander, D. E., and Ghiold, J. 1980. The functional significance of the lunules in the sand dollar Mellita quinquiesperforata. Biological Bulletin 159:561–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bather, F. A. 1900. Part III. The Echinoderms. In Lankester, E. R. (ed.), A Treatise on Zoology. Adam and Charles Black; London.Google Scholar
Cuénot, L. 1948. Anatomie, ethologie et systematique des echinodermes. Pp. 1–275. In Grassée, P. P. (ed.), Traité de Zoologie. Tome XI. Echinodermes, Stomocordés, Proctocordés. Masson; Paris.Google Scholar
De Ridder, C., and Lawrence, J. M. 1982. Food and feeding machanisms: Echinoidea. Pp. 213–234. In Jangoux, M., and Lawrence, J. M. (eds.), Echinoderm Nutrition. A. A. Balkema; Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Farris, J. S. 1981. Distance data in phylogenetic analysis. Pp. 1–23. In Funk, V. A., and Brooks, D. R. (eds.), Advances in Cladistics. Proceedings of the First Meeting of the Willi Hennig Society. Allen Press; Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Fink, W. L. 1982. The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 8:254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, W. L. 1988. Phylogenetic analysis and the detection of ontogenetic patterns. Pp. 71–91. In McKinney, M. L. (ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. M., and Margoliash, E. 1967. Construction of phylogenetic trees: a method based on mutation distances as estimated from cytochrome C sequences is of general applicability. Science 155:279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferies, R. P. S. 1986. The Ancestry of the Vertebrates. British Museum (Natural History); London.Google Scholar
Kluge, A. G. 1985. Ontogeny and phylogenetic systematics. Cladistics 1:13–27.Google Scholar
Kluge, A. G. 1988. The characterization of ontogeny. Pp. 57–81. In Humphries, C. J. (ed.), Ontogeny and Systematics. Columbia University Press; New York.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. M. 1987. A Functional Biology of Echinoderms. Croom Helm Limited; London.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1984. Allometry and heterochrony in an Eocene echinoid lineage: morphological change as a by-product of size selection. Paleobiology 10:207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1988. Heterochrony in Evolution: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1982. Heterochrony and phylogenetic trends. Paleobiology 8:130–142.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1987. Plate translocation in spatangoid echinoids: its morphological, functional and phylogenetic significance. Paleobiology 13:312–325.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1988. The abundance of heterochrony in the fossil record. Pp. 287–325. In McKinney, M. L. (ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press; New York.Google Scholar
Nichols, D. 1969. Echinoderms. Fourth Edition. Hutchinson and Company; London.Google Scholar
Nichols, D. 1975. The Uniqueness of the Echinoderms. Oxford Biology Readers 53. Oxford University Press; London.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1979. Constructional morphology of sand dollars. Paleobiology 5:191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 1985. PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony. User's Manual. Illinois Natural History Survey; Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
Telford, M. 1981. A hydrodynamic interpretation of sand dollar morphology. Bulletin of Marine Science 31:605–622.Google Scholar
Telford, M. 1983. An experimental analysis of lunule function in the sand dollar Mellita quinquiesperforata. Marine Biology 76:125–134.Google Scholar
Telford, M. 1985a. Structural analysis of the test of Echinocyamus pusillus. Pp. 353–359. In Keegan, B. F., and O'Connor, B. D. S. (eds.), Echinodermata. Proceedings of the International Echinoderm Conference, Galway. A. A. Balkema; Rotterdam.Google Scholar
Telford, M. 1985b. Domes, arches and urchins: the skeletal architecture of echinoids (Echinodermata). Zoomorphology 105:114–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkie, I. C. 1988. Design for disaster: the ophiuroid intervertebral ligament as a typical mutable collagenous structure. Pp. 25–38. In Burke, R. D., Mladenov, P. V., Lambert, P., and Parsley, R. L. (eds), Echinoderm Biology. Proceedings of the Sixth International Echinoderm Conference, Victoria. A. A. Balkema; Rotterdam.Google Scholar