Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:06:42.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phylogenetic analysis of the Olenellina Walcott, 1890 (Trilobita, Cambrian)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Bruce S. Lieberman
Bruce S. Lieberman*
Affiliation:
Departments of Geology and Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas, Lindley Hall, Lawrence 66045,
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phylogenetic analysis was used to evaluate evolutionary relationships within the Cambrian suborder Olenellina Walcott, 1890; special emphasis was placed on those taxa outside of the Olenelloidea. Fifty-seven exoskeletal characters were coded for 24 taxa within the Olenellina and two outgroups referable to the “fallotaspidoid” grade. The Olenelloidea, along with the genus Gabriellus Fritz, 1992, are the sister group of the Judomioidea Repina, 1979. The “Nevadioidea” Hupé, 1953 are a paraphyletic grade group. Four new genera are recognized, Plesionevadia, Cambroinyoella, Callavalonia, and Sdzuyomia, and three new species are described, Nevadia fritzi, Cirquella nelsoni, and Cambroinyoella wallacei. Phylogenetic parsimony analysis is also used to make predictions about the ancestral morphology of the Olenellina. This morphology most resembles the morphology found in Plesionevadia and Pseudojudomia Egorova in Goryanskii and Egorova, 1964.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , January 2001 , pp. 96 - 115
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

Ahlberg, P. J., Bergström, J., and Johansson, J. 1986. Lower Cambrian olenellid trilobites from the Baltic faunal province. Geologiska Föreningens i Stockholm Forhandlingar, 108:39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archie, J. W. 1989. Homoplasy excess ratios: new indices for measuring levels of homoplasy in phylogenetic systematics and a critique of the consistency index. Systematic Zoology, 38:253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergström, J. 1973. Classification of olenellid trilobites and some Balto-Scandian species. Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 53:283–314.Google Scholar
Bremer, K. 1994. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics, 10:295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burr, H. T. 1900. A new Lower Cambrian fauna from eastern Massachusetts. American Geologist, 25:41–50.Google Scholar
Cobbold, E. S. 1910. On some small trilobites from the Cambrian rocks of Comley (Shropshire). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 66:19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobbold, E. S. 1911. Trilobites from the Paradoxides beds of Comley. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 67:282–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobbold, E. S. 1931. Additional fossils from the Cambrian rocks of Comley, Shropshire. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 83:459–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgecombe, G. D., and Ramsköld, L. 1999. Relationships of Cambrian Arachnata and the systematic position of Trilobita. Journal of Paleontology, 73:263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N., and Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology. Columbia University Press, New York, 349 p.Google Scholar
Emmons, E. 1844. The Taconic System; based on observations in New York, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and Rhode Island, Albany, New York, 653 p.Google Scholar
Faith, D. P. 1991. Cladistic permutation tests for monophyly and nonmonophyly. Systematic Zoology, 40:366–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faith, D. P., and Trueman, J. W. H. 1996. When the Topology-Dependent Permutation Test (T-PTP) for monophyly returns significant support for monophyly, should that be equated with (a) rejecting a null hypothesis of nonmonophyly, (b) rejecting a null hypothesis of “no structure,” (c) failing to falsify a hypothesis of monophyly, or (d) none of the above? Systematic Biology, 45:580–586.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A. 1990. Ontogeny, hypostome attachment and trilobite classification. Palaeontology, 33:529–576.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., Briggs, D. E. G., and Wills, M. A. 1996. The Cambrian evolutionary ‘explosion’: decoupling cladogenesis from morphological disparity. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 57:13–33.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Owens, R. M. 1997. Evolutionary History, p. 249–287. In Kaesler, R.L. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, O (Arthropoda 1, Trilobita, Revised). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Theron, J. N. 1994. A new Ordovician arthropod, Soomaspis, and the agnostid problem. Palaeontology, 37:841–861.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., and Whittington, H. B. 1989. The Trilobita as a natural group. Historical Biology, 2:125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, W. H. 1972. Lower Cambrian trilobites from the Sekwi Formation type section, Mackenzie Mountains, northwestern Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin, 212:1–90.Google Scholar
Fritz, W. H. 1992. Walcott's Lower Cambrian olenellid trilobite collection 61K, Mount Robson area, Canadian Rocky Mountains. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin, 432:1–65.Google Scholar
Fritz, W. H. 1993. New Lower Cambrian olenelloid trilobite genera Cirquella and Geraldinella from southwestern Canada. Journal of Paleontology, 67:856–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, W. H. 1995. Esmeraldina rowei and associated Lower Cambrian trilobites (If fauna) at the base of Walcott's Waucoban series, southern Great Basin, U.S.A. Journal of Paleontology, 69:708–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geyer, G. 1993. The giant Cambrian trilobites of Morocco. Bergineria, 8:71–107.Google Scholar
Geyer, G. 1996. The Moroccan fallotaspidid trilobites revisited. Beringeria, 18:89–199.Google Scholar
Geyer, G., and Palmer, A. R. 1995. Neltneriidae and Holmiidae (Trilobita) from Morocco and the problem of Early Cambrian intercontinental correlation. Journal of Paleontology, 69:459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goryanskii, V. Y., and Egorova, L. I. 1964. O faune nizhnego kembriia severnogo sklona Anabarskogo shchita. Uchenye Zapiski, Seriia Paleontologiia i Biostratigrafiia, 4:5–32.Google Scholar
Grabau, A. W. 1900. Paleontology of the Cambrian terranes of the Boston basin. Occasional Papers of the Boston Society of Natural History, 4(part 3):601–694Google Scholar
Harrington, H. J., Henningsmoen, G., Howell, B. F., Jaanusson, V., Lochman-Balk, C., Moore, R. C., Poulsen, C., Rasetti, F., Richter, E., Richter, R., Schmidt, H., Sdzuy, K., Struve, W., St⊘rmer, L., Stubblefield, C. J., Tripp, R., Weller, J. M., and Whittington, H. B. 1959. Trilobita. In Moore, R. C. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part O, Arthropoda 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 560 p.Google Scholar
Hillis, D. M. 1991. Discriminating between phylogenetic signal and random noise in DNA sequences, p. 278–294. In Miyamoto, M. M. and Cracraft, J. (eds.), Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA Sequences. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. C. 1991. Morphological plasticity and genetic flexibility in a Cambrian trilobite. Geology, 19:913–916.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hupé, P. 1953. Contributions à l'étude du Cambrien inférieur et du Précambrien III de 1'Anti-Atlas marocain. Notes et Mémoires du Service Géologique (Morocco), 103:1–402.Google Scholar
Hupé, P., and Abadie, J. 1950. Sur l'existence de Trilobites du Cambrien Inferieur marocain. Comptes Rendus de l'Academie de Sciences, 230:2112–2113.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, R. D. 1962. Cambrian stratigraphy and trilobite faunas of southeastern Newfoundland. Geological Survey of Canada Bulletin, 88:1–156.Google Scholar
Jell, P. A., and Repina, L. N. 1992. Olenellid trilobites of the Botomian stage, Siberian platform. Palaeontological Journal, 1:118–122.Google Scholar
Khomentovskii, V. V., and Repina, L. N. 1965. (The Lower Cambrian stratotype section of Siberia). Sibirskoe Otdelenie, Institut Geologii i Geofiziki, Akademiia Nauk SSSR. 196 p.Google Scholar
Kielan, Z. 1960. On two olenellid trilobites from Hornsund, Vestspitsbergen. Studia Geologica Polonica, 4:83–92.Google Scholar
Klassen, G. J., Mooi, R. D., and Locke, A. 1991. Consistency indices and random data. Systematic Zoology, 40:446–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, P. 1937. A monograph of the British Cambrian trilobites. Palaeontographical Society Monograph, 10:225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landing, E. 1988. Lower Cambrian of eastern Massachusetts: stratigraphy and small shelly fossils. Journal of Paleontology, 62:661–695.Google Scholar
Landing, E. 1996. Avalon: insular continent by the latest Precambrian, p. 29–63. In Nance, R.D. and Thompson, M.D. (eds.), Avalonian and Related Peri-Gondwanan Terranes of the Circum-North Atlantic. Geological Society of America Special Paper, 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapworth, C. 1888. On the discovery of the Olenellus fauna in the Lower Cambrian rocks of Great Britain. Geological Magazine, 5:484–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapworth, C. 1891. On Olenellus callavei and its geological relationships. Geological Magazine, 8:530–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarenko, N. P. 1960. (New species of ancient plants and invertebrates of the USSSR, pt. 2). VSEGEI, Moscow, 552 p.Google Scholar
Lazarenko, N. P. 1962. (New Lower Cambrian trilobites from the Soviet Arctic). Sbornik Statey po Paleontologii i Biostratigrafii, 29:29–77.Google Scholar
Lermontova, E. V. 1951. (Lower Cambrian trilobites and brachiopods from eastern Siberia). Gosgeolizdat, Moscow, 218 p.Google Scholar
Lieberman, B. S. 1998. Cladistic analysis of the Early Cambrian olenelloid trilobites. Journal of Paleontology, 72:59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, B. S. 1999. Systematic revision of the Olenelloidea (Trilobita, Cambrian). Bulletin of the Yale University Peabody Museum of Natural History, 45:1–150.Google Scholar
Maddison, D. R. 1991. The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most-parsimonious trees. Systematic Zoology, 40:315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddison, W. P., and Maddison, D. R. 1992. MacClade: Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution. Version 3.04. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Matthew, G. F. 1897. What is the Olenellus fauna? The American Geologist, 19:396–407.Google Scholar
McMenamin, M. A. S. 1987. Lower Cambrian trilobites, zonation, and correlation of the Puerto Blanco Formation, Sonora, Mexico. Journal of Paleontology, 61:738–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1986. The role of heterochrony in the evolution of Cambrian trilobites. Biological Reviews, 61:121–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, C. A. 1976. Late Precambrian Early Cambrian stratigraphic and faunal succession of eastern California and the Precambrian Cambrian boundary, p. 31–40. In Moore, J. N. and Fritsche, A. E. (eds.), Depositional Environments of Lower Paleozoic Rocks in the White Inyo Mountains, Inyo County, California. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific Section, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Nelson, C. A. 1978. Late Precambrian–Early Cambrian stratigraphic and faunal succession of eastern California and the Precambrian–Cambrian boundary. Geological Magazine, 115:121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neltner, L., and Poctey, N. 1949. Quelques faunes georgiennes du Maroc. Notes du Service Géologique Maroc, 2, 74:53–83.Google Scholar
Okulitch, V. J. 1951. A Lower Cambrian fossil locality near Addy, Washington. Journal of Paleontology, 25:405–407.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. R., and Repina, L. N. 1993. Through a glass darkly: taxonomy, phylogeny and biostratigraphy of the Olenellina. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, New Series, 3:1–35.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. R., and Repina, L. N. 1997. Olenellina, p. 404–429. In Kaesler, R. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, O (Arthropoda 1, Trilobita, Revised). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Ramsköld, L., and Edgecombe, G. D. 1991. Trilobite monophyly revisited. Historical Biology, 4:267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasetti, F. 1948. Lower Cambrian trilobites from the conglomerates of Quebec. Journal of Paleontology, 22:1–24.Google Scholar
Raw, F. 1936. Mesonacidae of Comley in Shropshire, with a discussion of classification within the family. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 92:236–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raw, F. 1937. Systematic position of the Olenellidae (Mesonacidae). Journal of Paleontology, 11:575–597.Google Scholar
Repina, L. N. 1979. (Dependence of morphologic features on habitat conditions in trilobites and evaluation of their significance for the systematics of the superfamily Olenelloidea). Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Sibirskoe Otdelenie, Trudy Instituta Geologii i Geofizikii, 431:11–30.Google Scholar
Richter, R. 1932. Crustacea (Paläontologie), p. 840–864. In Dittler, R., Joos, G., Korschelt, E., Linek, G., Oltmanns, F., and Schaum, K. (eds.), Handwörterbuch der Naturwissenschaften. Gustav Fisher, Jena.Google Scholar
Richter, R., and Richter, E. 1941. Die Fauna des Unter-Kambriums von Cala in Andalusien. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 455:1–90.Google Scholar
Sanderson, M. J., and Donoghue, M. J. 1989. Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. Evolution, 43:1781–1795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sdzuy, K. 1961. Das Kambrium Spaniens. Teil II: trilobiten. 1. Abschnitt. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz, Abhandlungen der mathematisch naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 1961:217–312.Google Scholar
Sdzuy, K. 1962. Trilobiten aus dem Unter-Kambrium der Sierra Morena (S-Spanien). Senckenbergiana Lethaea, 43:181–229.Google Scholar
Shimer, H. W., and Shrock, R. R. 1944. Index Fossils of North America. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 837 p.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. 1994. Systematics and the Fossil Record. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, 223 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suvorova, N. P. 1960. Trilobity kembriia vostoka Sibirskoi Platformy. Vypusk 2, Olenellidy Granuliariidy. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 84:1–230.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L. 1998. PAUP (Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony), version 4.0. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. L., Thorne, J. L., Felsenstein, J., and Wiegmann, B. M. 1996. The Topology-Dependent Permutation Test for monophyly does not test for monophyly. Systematic Biology, 45:575–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tasch, P. 1952. Adaptive trend in eyeline development in the Olenellidae. Journal of Paleontology, 26:484–488.Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1890. The fauna of the Lower Cambrian or Olenellus zone. U.S. Geological Survey, 10th Annual Report:509–763Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1910. Olenellus and other genera of the Mesonacidae. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 53(6):231–422Google Scholar
Walcott, C. D. 1913. Cambrian geology and paleontology, No. 11. New Lower Cambrian subfauna. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 57(11):309–326Google Scholar
Whitehouse, F. W. 1939. The Cambrian faunas of North-Eastern Australia. Part 3: the polymerid trilobites. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 11:179–282.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B. 1989. Olenelloid trilobites: type species, functional morphology and higher classification. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 324:111–147.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B., Chatterton, B. D. E., Speyer, S. E., Fortey, R. A., Owens, R. M., Chang, W. T., Dean, W. T., Fortey, R. A., Geyer, G., Jell, P. A., Laurie, J. R., Palmer, A. R., Repina, L. N., Rushton, A. W. A., Shergold, J. H., Clarkson, E. N. K., Wilmot, N. V., and Kelley, S. R. A. 1997. Part O, Arthropoda 1, Trilobita. In Kaesler, R. L. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, Boulder, Colorado and Lawrence, 530 p.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1979. An annotated Linnaean hierarchy, with comments on natural taxa and competing systems. Systematic Zoology, 28:308–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar