Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T15:47:10.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Burgess Shale-type preservation of both non-mineralizing and ‘shelly’ Cambrian organisms from the Mackenzie Mountains, northwestern Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

N. J. Butterfield  and
C. J. Nicholas
N. J. Butterfield
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada
C. J. Nicholas
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EQ, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lower to Middle Cambrian shales of the Mount Cap Formation in the Mackenzie Mountains, northwestern Canada, host a variety of Burgess Shale-type macrofossils, including anomalocarid claws, several taxa of bivalved arthropod, articulated hyolithids, and articulated chancelloriids. Hydrofluoric acid processing has also yielded a broad range of organic-walled fossils, most of which are derived from forms more typically known as shelly fossils; e.g., trilobites, inarticulate brachiopods, small shelly fossils (SSF), hyolithids, and chancelloriids. Organic-walled hyolithids include conchs, opercula and helens; the proximal articulation of the helens is erosive, suggesting that they were formed “instantaneously” and periodically replaced. Organic-walled chancelloriid sclerites exhibit a polygonal surface texture and an inner “pith” of dark granular material with distally oriented conoidal divisions; such a pattern is similar to that seen in the fibers of some modern horny sponges and points to a poriferan relationship for the chancelloriids. The robust nature but minimal relief of most of these fossils suggests that primary biomineralization was minimal.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 70 , Issue 6 , November 1996 , pp. 893 - 899
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

Aitken, J. D., Macqueen, R. W., and Usher, J. L. 1973. Reconnaissance studies of Proterozoic and Cambrian stratigraphy, lower Mackenzie River area (Operation Norman), District of Mackenzie. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper, 73-9, 178 p.Google Scholar
Babcock, L. E., and Robison, R. A. 1988. Taxonomy and paleobiology of some Middle Cambrian Scenella (Cnidaria) and hyolithids (Mollusca) from western North America. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions Paper, 121, 22 p.Google Scholar
Bengtson, S. 1992. The cap-shaped Cambrian fossil Maikhanella and the relationship between coeloscleritophorans and molluscs. Lethaia, 25:401–420.Google Scholar
Bengtson, S., Conway Morris, S., Cooper, B. J., Jell, P. A., and Runnegar, B. N. 1990. Early Cambrian fossils from South Australia. Association of Australasian Palaeontologists Memoir, 9, 364 p.Google Scholar
Bengtson, S., and Missarzhevsky, V. V. 1981. Coeloscleritophora—a major group of enigmatic Cambrian metazoans, p. 19–21. In Taylor, M. E. (ed.), Short Papers for the Second International Symposium on the Cambrian System. United States Geological Survey Open File Report, 81-743.Google Scholar
Bergquist, P. R. 1978. Sponges. Hutchinson, London, 268 p.Google Scholar
Brasier, M. D. 1992. Paleoceanography and changes in the biological cycling of phosphorous across the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary, p. 483–523. In Lipps, J. H. and Signor, P. W. (eds.), Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G. 1979. Anomalocaris, the largest known Cambrian arthropod. Palaeontology, 22:631–664.Google Scholar
Brusca, R. C., and Brusca, G. J. 1990. Invertebrates. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 922 p.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. J. 1990a. Organic preservation of non-mineralizing organisms and the taphonomy of the Burgess Shale. Paleobiology, 16:272–286.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. J. 1990b. A reassessment of the enigmatic Burgess Shale fossil Wiwaxia corrugata (Matthew) and its relationship to the polychaete Canadia spinosa Walcott. Paleobiology, 16:287–303.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. J. 1994. Burgess Shale-type fossils from a Lower Cambrian shallow-shelf sequence in northwestern Canada. Nature, 369:477–479.Google Scholar
Butterfield, N. J. 1995. Secular distribution of Burgess Shale-type preservation. Lethaia, 28:1–13.Google Scholar
Carter, H. H. 1872. Description, with illustrations, of a new species of Aplysina from the N.W. coast of Spain. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 4, 10:101–110.Google Scholar
Carter, H. H. 1881. On the development of the fibre in the Spongida. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 5, 8:112–120.Google Scholar
Conway Morris, S. 1986. The community structure of the Middle Cambrian Phyllopod Bed (Burgess Shale). Palaeontology, 29:423–467.Google Scholar
Conway Morris, S., and Peel, J. S. 1995. Articulated halkieriids from the Lower Cambrian of North Greenland and their role in early protostome evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 347:305–358.Google Scholar
Dzik, J. 1980. Ontogeny of Bactrotheca and related hyoliths. Geologiska Föreningens i Stockholm Förhandlingar, 102:223–233.Google Scholar
Harris, T. M. 1974. Williamsoniella lignieri: its pollen and the compression of spherical pollen grains. Palaeontology, 17:125–148.Google Scholar
Hinz, I. 1987. The Lower Cambrian microfauna of Comley and Rushton, Shropshire/England. Palaeontographica Abteilung A, 198:41–100.Google Scholar
Holmer, L. 1989. Middle Ordovician phosphatic inarticulate brachiopods from Västergötland and Dalarna, Sweden. Fossils and Strata, 26, 172 p.Google Scholar
Marek, L., and Yochelson, E. L. 1976. Aspects of the biology of Hyolitha (Mollusca). Lethaia, 9:65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, F. 1865. Ueber Darwinella aurea, einen Schwamm mit sternförmigen Hornnadeln. Archiv für Mikroskopische Anatomie, 1:344–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugh, D. C. 1993. Subsurface geology of pre-Mesozoic strata, Great Bear River map area, District of Mackenzie. Geological Survey of Canada Memoir, 430, 137 p.Google Scholar
Runnegar, B. 1980. Hyolitha: status of the phylum. Lethaia, 13:21–25.Google Scholar
Runnegar, B., Pojeta, J., Morris, N. J., Taylor, J. D., Taylor, M. E., and McClung, G. 1975. Biology of the Hyolitha. Lethaia, 8:181–191.Google Scholar
Salvini-Plawen, L. v. 1988. The structure and function of molluscan digestive systems, p. 301–379. In Trueman, E. R. and Clarke, M. R. (eds.), The Mollusca, volume 11, Form and Function. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Simpson, T. L. 1984. The Cell Biology of Sponges. Springer-Verlag, New York, 662 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towe, K. M., and Rützler, K. 1968. Lepidocrocite iron mineralization in keratose sponge granules. Science, 162:268–269.Google Scholar
Vacelet, J. 1971a. Ultrastructure et formation des fibres de spongine d'éponges cornées Verongia. Journal de Microscopie (France), 10:13–32.Google Scholar
Vacelet, J. 1971b. L'ultrastructure de la cuticle d'éponges cornées du genre Verongia. Journal de Microscopie (France), 10:113–116.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1920. Cambrian geology and paleontology IV, No. 6.-Middle Cambrian Spongiae. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 67:261–364.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1975. Trilobites with appendages from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale, British Columbia. Fossils and Strata, 4:97–136.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Mackay, S., and Cusack, M. 1992. Structure of the organo-phosphatic shell of the brachiopod Discina. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 337:83–104.Google Scholar
Yochelson, E. L. 1961. The operculum and mode of life of Hyolithes. Journal of Paleontology, 35:152–161.Google Scholar
Yochelson, E. L. 1974. Redescription of the Early Cambrian Helenia bella Walcott, an appendage of Hyolithes. United States Geological Survey, Journal of Research, 2:717–722.Google Scholar