Thylacocephala

Last updated

Thylacocephala
Temporal range: Sandbian to Late Cretaceous (possible early Cambrian record)
Clausocaris lithographica reconstruction.png
Restoration of Clausocaris , a Concavicarida
Thylacares brandonensis S12862-014-0159-2-10.jpg
Reconstruction of Thylacares , once considered to be the earliest known thylacocephalan
Scientific classification OOjs UI icon edit-ltr.svg
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Clade: Mandibulata
Class: Thylacocephala
Pinna et al., 1982
Orders

The Thylacocephala (from the Greek θύλακος or thylakos, meaning "pouch", and κεφαλή or cephalon meaning "head") are group of extinct probable mandibulate arthropods, [1] that have been considered by some researchers as having possible crustacean affinities. As a class they have a short research history, having been erected in the early 1980s. [2] [3] [4]

Contents

They typically possess a large, laterally flattened carapace that encompasses the entire body. The compound eyes tend to be large and bulbous, and occupy a frontal notch on the carapace. They possess three pairs of large raptorial limbs, and the abdomen bears a battery of small swimming limbs.

Inconclusive claims of thylacocephalans have been reported from the lower lower Cambrian ( Zhenghecaris ), [5] but later study considered that genus as radiodont or arthropod with uncertain systematic position. [6] The oldest unequivocal fossils are Upper Ordovician and Lower Silurian in age. [7] [8] As a group, the Thylacocephala survived to the Santonian stage of the Upper Cretaceous, around 84 million years ago. [9] [10]

Beyond this, there remains much uncertainty concerning fundamental aspects of the thylacocephalan anatomy, mode of life, and relationship to the Crustacea, with whom they have always been cautiously aligned.

Research history

Fossil of Triassic Ankitokazocaris Ankitokazocaris.JPG
Fossil of Triassic Ankitokazocaris

The Thylacocephala is only recently described as a class, yet species now included within the group were first described at the turn of the century. [11] [12] These were typically assigned to the phyllocarids despite an apparent lack of abdomen and appendages. [13] In 1982/83, three research groups independently created higher taxa to accommodate new species. Based on a specimen from northern Italy, Pinna et al. designated a new class, [2] Thylacocephala, while Secrétan – studying Dollocaris ingens, a species from the La Voulte-sur-Rhône konservat-lagerstätte in France – erected the class Conchyliocarida. [14] Briggs & Rolfe, working on fossils from Australia's Devonian deposits were unable to attribute certain specimens to a known group, and created an order of uncertain affinities, the Concavicarida, to accommodate them. [4] It was apparent the three groups were in fact working on a single major taxon (Rolfe noted disagreements over interpretation and taxonomic placement largely resulted from a disparity of sizes and differences in preservation.) [15] The group took the name Thylacocephala by priority, with Concavicarida and Conchyliocarida subjugated to orders, erected by Rolfe, [15] and modified by Schram. [13]

Taxonomy

Ostenocaris cypriformis, fossil and reconstruction Ostenocaris cypriformis.JPG
Ostenocaris cypriformis , fossil and reconstruction

Researchers agree the Thylacocephala represent a class. Some efforts have been made at further classification: Schram split currently known taxa into two orders: [13]

The accuracy of this scheme has been questioned in recent papers, [5] as it stresses differences in the eyes and exoskeletal structure, which – in modern arthropods – tend to be a response to environmental conditions. Thus it has been suggested these features are too strongly controlled by external factors to be used alone to distinguish higher taxa. The problem is exacerbated by the limited number of thylacocephalan species known. More reliable anatomical indicators would include segmentation and appendage attachments (requiring the internal anatomy, currently elusive as a result of the carapace).

Anatomy

Drawing of Concavicaris georgeorum Concavicaris georgeorum.png
Drawing of Concavicaris georgeorum

Based on Vannier, [5] modified after Schram: [13] The Thylacocephala are bivalved arthropods with morphology exemplified by three pairs of long raptorial (predatory) appendages and hypertrophied eyes. They have a worldwide distribution. A laterally compressed, shield−like carapace encloses the entire body, and often has an anterior rostrum−notch complex and posterior rostrum. Its lateral surface can be externally ornamented, and evenly convex or with longitudinal ridges. Spherical or drop-shaped eyes are situated in the optic notches, and are often hypertrophied, filling the notches or forming a paired, frontal globular structure. No prominent abdominal features emerge from the carapace, and the cephalon is obscured. Even so, some authors have suggested the presence of five cephalic appendages, three of which could be the very long genticulate and chelate raptorials protruding beyond the ventral margin. [13] [16] Alternatively these could originate from three anterior trunk segments. [17] The posterior trunk has a series of eight to twenty [4] [7] styliform, filamentous pleopod-like appendages, decreasing in size posteriorly. Most Thylacocephala have eight pairs of well developed gills, found in the trunk region.

Dollocaris ingens was a thylacocephalan from the Jurassic aged Voulte-sur-Rhone lagerstatte in France Dollocaris ingens reconstruction.jpg
Dollocaris ingens was a thylacocephalan from the Jurassic aged Voulte-sur-Rhône lagerstätte in France

Beyond this there is a lack of knowledge about even basic thylacocephalan anatomy, including the number of posterior segments, origin of the raptorials, number of cephalic appendages, shape and attachment of gills, character of mouth, stomach and gut. This results from the class's all–encompassing carapace, which prevents the study of their internal anatomy in fossils.

Affinities

It is universally accepted that the Thylacocephala are arthropods, yet the position within this phylum is debated. It had formerly been cautiously assumed that the class was a member of the Crustacea, but no conclusive proof exists. The strongest apomorphy aligning the class with other crustaceans is the carapace. As this feature has evolved independently numerous times within the Crustacea and other arthropods, it is not a very reliable pointer, and such evidence alone remains insufficient to align the class with the crustaceans. [13]

Of the features which could prove crustacean affinities, the arrangement of mouthparts would be the easiest to find in the Thylacocephala. The literature features some mention of such a head arrangement, but none definitive. Schram reports the discovery of mandibles in the Mazon Creek thylacocephalan Concavicaris georgeorum. [13] Secrétan also mentions – with caution – possible mandibles in serial sections of Dollocaris ingens, and traces of small limbs in the cephalic region (not well preserved enough to assess their identity). [17] Lange et al. report a new genus and species, Thylacocephalus cymolopos, from the Upper Cretaceous of Lebanon, which has two possible pairs of antennae, but note the possession of two pairs of antennae alone does not prove the class occupies a position in the crown-group Crustacea. [18]

Despite a lack of evidence for a crustacean body plan, several authors have aligned the class with different groups of crustaceans. Schram provides an overview of possible affinities: [13]

In these various interpretations, numerous different limb arrangements for the three raptorials have been proposed:

Further work is necessary to provide any solid conclusions.

A study in 2022 describing a new arthropod from Wisconsin, Acheronauta , found that the Thylacocephalans occupied a position more primitive than the crustaceans and myriapods as basal stem-group mandibulates. [1] This would place them outside of the crustaceans as a more basal branch of the arthropod family tree. [1]

Arthropoda

Parioscorpio venator

Cascolus ravitis

Tanazios dokeron

Captopodus poschmanni

Acheronauta stimulapis

Thylacocephala

Occacaris oviformis

Myriapoda

Ercaicunia multinodosa

Clypecaris pteroidea

Waptia fieldensis

Perspicaris dictynna

Canadaspis perfecta

Tokummia katalepsis

Branchiocaris pretiosa

Nereocaris exilis

Odaria alata

Euthycarcinoidea

Fuxianhuiida

Fuxianhuia

Chengjiangocaris

Shankouia

Pancrustacea

Argulus

Ostracoda

Lepidocaris

Triops

Artemia

Remipedia

Cephalocarida

Hexapoda

Multicrustacea

This cladogram represents the placement of the Thylacocephalans within the arthropoda as suggested by Pulsipher, 2022. [1]

Disagreements

Numerous conflicts of opinion surround the Thylacocephala, of which the split between the “Italian school” and rest of the world is the most notable. Based on poorly preserved Ostenocaris cypriformis fossils from the Osteno deposits of Lombardy, Pinna et al. erected the class Thylacocephala. [16] Based on inferred cirripede affinities the authors concluded the frontal lobed structure was not an eye, but a 'cephalic sac'. This opinion arose from the misinterpretation of the stomach as a reproductive organ (its contents included vertebral elements of fish, thought to be ovarian eggs). [5] Such an arrangement is reminiscent of cirripede crustaceans, leading the authors to suggest a sessile, filter feeding mode of life, the 'cephalic sac' used to anchor the organism to the seabed. The researchers have since conceded it is highly improbable the ovaries are situated in the head, but maintain that the frontal structure is not an eye. Instead they suggest the 'cephalic sac' is covered with microsclerites, their arguments most recently presented in Alessandrello et al. [20]

Instead the authors suggest the sac is used to break down coarse chunks of food and reject indigestible portions.

All other parties interpret this as a large compound eye, the hexagons being preserved ommatidia (all researchers agree these are the same structure). [15] [17] This is supported by fossils of Dollocaris ingens which are so well preserved that individual retinula cells can be discerned. The preservation is so exceptional that studies have shown the species' numerous small ommatidia, distributed over the large eyes, could reduce the angle between ommatidia, thus improve their ability to detect small objects. [21] Of the arguments above, it is posited by opponents that eyes are complex structures, and those in the Thylacocephala display clear and numerous affinities with compound eyes in other arthropod fossils, down to a cellular level of detail. The 'cephalic sac' structure itself is poorly preserved in Osteno specimens, a possible reason for interstitial 'sclerites'. The structural analogy with a cirripede peduncle lost supporting evidence when the 'ovaries' were shown to be alimentary residues, [5] and the sac muscular system could be used to support the eyes. The unusual position of the stomach is thus the strongest inconsistency, but the Thylacocephala are defined by their unusual features, so this is not inconceivable. Further, Rolfe suggests the eyes' position can be explained if they have a large posterior area of attachment, [15] while Schram suggests that the stomach region extending into the cephalic sac could result from an inflated foregut or anteriorly directed caecum. [13]

Discussion of the matter has ceased in the last decade, and most researchers accept the anterior structure is an eye. Confusion is most likely the result of differing preservation in Osteno.

Mode of life

The strange Silurian aged thylacocephalan Ainiktozoon loganense. Ainiktozoon loganese.jpg
The strange Silurian aged thylacocephalan Ainiktozoon loganense.

Numerous modes of life have been suggested for the Thylacocephala.

Secrétan suggested Dollocaris ingens was too large to swim, [17] so inferred a predatory 'lurking' mode of life, lying in wait on the sea bed and then springing out to capture prey. The author also suggested it could be necrophagous, supported by Alessandrello et al., [20] who suggest they would have been incapable of directly killing the shark remains found in the Osteno specimens' alimentary residues. Instead they surmise the Thylacocephala could have ingested shark vomit which included such remains.

Vannier et al. note the Thylacocephala possess features which would suggest adaptations for swimming in dim-light environments – a thin, non-mineralized carapace, well-developed rostral spines for possible buoyancy control in some species, a battery of pleopods for swimming, and large prominent eyes. [5] This is supported by the Cretaceous species from Lebanon, which show adaptations for swimming, [9] and possibly schooling.

Rolfe provides many possibilities, but concludes a realistic mode of life is mesopelagic, by analogy with hyperiid amphipods. [15] Further suggests floor-dwelling is also possible, and that the organism could rise to catch prey during the day and return to the sea floor at night. Another notable proposal is that, like hyperiids, the class could gain oil from their food source for buoyancy, an idea supported by their diet (known from stomach residues containing shark and coleoid remains, and other Thylacocephala).

Alessandrello et al. suggest a head-down, semi-sessile life on a soft bottom, [20] in agreement with that of Pinna et al., based on cirripede affinities. A necrophagous diet is suggested. [16]

Briggs & Rolfe report that all the Gogo formation Thylacocephala are found in a reef formation, suggesting a shallow water environment. [4] The authors speculate that due to the terracing of the carapace an infaunal mode of life is possible, or the ridges could provide more friction for hiding in crevices of rock.

Schram suggests a dichotomy in size of the class results from different environments; [13] larger Thylacocephala could have lived in a fluid characterized by turbulent flow, and relied on single power stroke of trunk limbs to position themselves. He suggests that smaller forms may have resided in a viscous medium, characterized by laminar flow, and used a lever to generate the speed necessary to capture prey.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agnostida</span> Extinct order of arthropods

Agnostida are an order of extinct arthropods which have classically been seen as a group of highly modified trilobites, though some recent research has doubted this placement. Regardless, they appear to be close relatives as part of the Artiopoda. They are present in the Lower Cambrian fossil record along with trilobites from the Redlichiida, Corynexochida, and Ptychopariida orders, and were highly diverse throughout the Cambrian. Agnostidan diversity severely declined during the Cambrian-Ordovician transition, and the last agnostidans went extinct in the Late Ordovician.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carapace</span> Part of exoskeleton in some animals

A carapace is a dorsal (upper) section of the exoskeleton or shell in a number of animal groups, including arthropods, such as crustaceans and arachnids, as well as vertebrates, such as turtles and tortoises. In turtles and tortoises, the underside is called the plastron.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eucarida</span> Superorder of crustaceans

Eucarida is a superorder of the Malacostraca, a class of the crustacean subphylum, comprising the decapods, krill, and Angustidontida. They are characterised by having the carapace fused to all thoracic segments, and by the possession of stalked eyes.

<i>Ainiktozoon</i> Extinct genus of crustaceans

Ainiktozoon loganense, is a fossil animal from the Silurian of Scotland. It was found at the Birk Knowes site, part of the Patrick Burn Formation, near Lesmahagow. Originally described as an early chordate, recent studies suggest that it was in fact an arthropod, more precisely a thylacocephalan crustacean.

<i>Angustidontus</i> Extinct genus of crustaceans

Angustidontus is a genus of predatory pelagic crustaceans from the Late Devonian and Early Carboniferous periods, classified as part of the subclass Eumalacostraca. Fossils of the genus have been recovered in relative abundance from Canada, Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and large parts of the United States, including Oklahoma, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, Utah, Nevada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Radiodonta</span> Extinct order of Cambrian arthropods

Radiodonta is an extinct order of stem-group arthropods that was successful worldwide during the Cambrian period. They may be referred to as radiodonts, radiodontans, radiodontids, anomalocarids, or anomalocaridids, although the last two originally refer to the family Anomalocarididae, which previously included all species of this order but is now restricted to only a few species. Radiodonts are distinguished by their distinctive frontal appendages, which are morphologically diverse and used for a variety of functions. Radiodonts included the earliest large predators known, but they also included sediment sifters and filter feeders. Some of the most famous species of radiodonts are the Cambrian taxa Anomalocaris canadensis, Hurdia victoria, Peytoia nathorsti, Titanokorys gainessii, Cambroraster falcatus and Amplectobelua symbrachiata, the Ordovician Aegirocassis benmoulai and the Devonian Schinderhannes bartelsi.

Aeschronectida is an extinct order of mantis shrimp-like crustaceans which lived in the Mississippian subperiod in what is now Montana. They exclusively lived in the Carboniferous, or the age of amphibians. They have been found mostly in the U.S. and in the British Isles, in 1979 species were found in the Madera Formation in New Mexico. Aeschronectida was first identified appearing in Continental Europe in around 2014. While sharing similar characteristics to Stomatopoda, they lack certain physical characteristics of that taxon. The first species of Aeschronectida is accredited to Frederick R. Schram. They diverge substantially from typical hoplocaridan morphology by having more unmodified thoracopods. It's theorized that these thoracopods evolved to become more specialized, making them potential ancestors to Stomatopoda.

Phylogeny of Malacostraca is the evolutionary relationships of the largest of the six classes of crustaceans, containing about 40,000 living species, divided among 16 orders. Its members display a great diversity of body forms. Although the class Malacostraca is united by a number of well-defined and documented features, which were recognised a century ago by William Thomas Calman in 1904, the phylogenetic relationship of the orders which compose this class is unclear due to the vast diversity present in their morphology. Molecular studies have attempted to infer the phylogeny of this clade, resulting in phylogenies which have a limited amount of morphological support. To resolve a well-supported eumalacostracan phylogeny and obtain a robust tree, it will be necessary to look beyond the most commonly utilized sources of data.

The cephalon is the head section of an arthropod. It is a tagma, i.e., a specialized grouping of arthropod segments. The word cephalon derives from the Greek κεφαλή (kephalē), meaning "head".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cyclida</span> Extinct order of crustaceans

Cyclida is an extinct order of crab-like fossil arthropods that lived from the Carboniferous to the Jurassic and possibly Cretaceous. Their classification is uncertain, but they are generally interpreted as crustaceans, likely belonging to the superclass Multicrustacea.

<i>Lepidocaris</i> Extinct genus of crustaceans

Lepidocaris rhyniensis is an extinct species of crustacean. It is the only species known from the order Lipostraca, and is the only abundant animal in the Pragian-aged Rhynie chert deposits. It resembles modern Anostraca, to which it is probably closely related, although its relationships to other orders remain unclear. The body is 3 mm (0.12 in) long, with 23 body segments and 19 pairs of appendages, but no carapace. It occurred chiefly among charophytes, probably in alkaline temporary pools.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crustacean</span> Subphylum of arthropods

Crustaceans belong to the subphylum Crustacea, and form a large, diverse group of arthropods including decapods, seed shrimp, branchiopods, fish lice, krill, remipedes, isopods, barnacles, copepods, opossum shrimps, amphipods and mantis shrimp. The crustacean group can be treated as a subphylum under the clade Mandibulata. It is now well accepted that the hexapods emerged deep in the Crustacean group, with the completed group referred to as Pancrustacea. The three classes Cephalocarida, Branchiopoda and Remipedia are more closely related to the hexapods than they are to any of the other crustaceans.

<i>Thylacares</i> Extinct genus of crustaceans from Wisconsin

Thylacares is a genus of Thylacocephalan containing only the single species Thylacares brandonensis. Found in Silurian period strata from the Brandon Bridge Formation in Waukesha, Wisconsin, U.S., the species is distinguishable from other Thylacocephalans by its smaller raptorial appendages and compound eyes. The body is fully encased in a bivalve shell, with only the eyes protruding on stalks. The species' trunk is composed of about 22 segments.

<i>Ostenocaris</i> Extinct genus of crustaceans

Ostenocaris is a Jurassic species of giant Thylacocephalan crustacean, sufficiently distinct from its relatives to be placed in its own family, Ostenocarididae. It is believed to be a bethonic animal and one of the most important necrophagus animals of its environment. Originally Interpreted as a bizarre Cirriped. Ostenocaris is the most common fossil of the formation, and the main identified thylacocephalan from the formation. In the first interpretations, the genus was shown as a filter-feeding organism, which used the cephalic sac as a burrowing organ to ensure adhesion to the substrate. Based on the presence of Coprolites associated to the genus, with abundant masses of alimentary residues in the stomach of these organisms, Ostenocaris cypriformis was probably a necrophagous organism, and the cephalic sac can be tentatively interpreted as being a burrowing organ employed during the search for food, or as an organ of locomotion with intrinsic motility.

<i>Parioscorpio</i> Extinct genus of enigmatic arthropod

Parioscorpio is an extinct genus of arthropod containing the species P. venator known from the Silurian-aged Waukesha Biota of the Brandon Bridge Formation near Waukesha, Wisconsin. This animal has gone through a confusing taxonomic history, being called an arachnid, crustacean, and an artiopodan arthropod at various points. This animal is one of the more famous fossil finds from Wisconsin, due to the media coverage it received based on its original description in 2020 as a basal scorpion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Moltrasio Formation</span> Geological formation in Italy and Switzerland

The Moltrasio Formation also known as the Lombardische Kieselkalk Formation is a geological formation in Italy and Switzerland. This Formation mostly developed in the Lower or Middle Sinemurian stage of the Lower Jurassic, where on the Lombardian basin tectonic activity modified the current marine and terrestrial habitats. Here it developed a series of marine-related depositional settings, represented by an outcrop of 550–600 m of grey Calcarenites and Calcilutites with chert lenses and marly interbeds, that recovers the Sedrina, Moltrasio and Domaro Formations. This was mostly due to the post-Triassic crisis, that was linked locally to tectonics. The Moltrasio Formation is considered a continuation of the Sedrina Limestone and the Hettangian Albenza Formation, and was probably a shallow water succession, developed on the passive margin of the westernmost Southern Alps. It is known due to the exquisite preservation observed on the Outcrop in Osteno, where several kinds of marine biota have been recovered.

2021 in arthropod paleontology is a list of new arthropod fossil taxa, including arachnids, crustaceans, insects, trilobites, and other arthropods that were announced or described, as well as other significant arthropod paleontological discoveries and events which occurred in 2021.

<i>Balhuticaris</i> Extinct genus of arthropods

Balhuticaris is a genus of extinct bivalved hymenocarine arthropod that lived in the Cambrian aged Burgess Shale in what is now British Columbia around 506 million years ago. This extremely multisegmented arthropod is the largest member of the group, and it was even one of the largest animals of the Cambrian, with individuals reaching lengths of 245 mm (9 in). Fossils of this animal suggests that gigantism occurred in more groups of Arthropoda than had been previously thought. It also presents the possibility that bivalved arthropods were very diverse, and filled in a lot of ecological niches.

<i>Acheronauta</i> Possible extinct mandibulate arthropod

Acheronauta is a genus of extinct vermiform arthropod that lived in the early Silurian Waukesha biota fossil site in southeast Wisconsin. This arthropod was first discovered alongside the biota in 1985, but was not fully described until October 2022. This creature was recognized and described as a possible early mandibulate. This description is very important as much of the fauna of the biota remain undescribed, and its discovery has allowed for paleontologists to get a better grasp of the diversity of the arthropod fauna at the site. Multiple phylogenetic analyses were performed, and it seems that this arthropod forms a previously undiscovered clade with the Devonian stem-arthropod Captopodus, and the somewhat enigmatic group Thylacocephala.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Phosphatocopina</span>

Phosphatocopina is an extinct group of bivalved arthropods known from the Cambrian period. They are generally sub-milimetric to a few millimetres in size. They are typically only known from isolated carapaces, but some found in Orsten-type phosphatized preservation have their bodies preserved in high fidelity in three dimensions.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Pulsipher, M. A.; Anderson, E. P.; Wright, L. S.; Kluessendorf, J.; Mikulic, D. G.; Schiffbauer, J. D. (2022). "Description of Acheronauta gen. nov., a possible mandibulate from the Silurian Waukesha Lagerstätte, Wisconsin, USA". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 20 (1). 2109216. doi:10.1080/14772019.2022.2109216. S2CID   252839113.
  2. 1 2 G. Pinna, P. Arduini, C. Pesarini & G. Teruzzi (1982). "Thylacocephala: una nuova classe di crostacei fossili". Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museocivico di Storia Naturale di Milano . 123: 469–482.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. S. Secrétan & B. Riou (1983). "Un groupe énigmatique de crustacés, ses représentants du Callovien de la Voulte−Sur−Rhône". Annales de Paléontologie . 69: 59–97.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 D. E. G. Briggs, & W. D. I. Rolfe (1983). "New Concavicarida (new order: ?Crustacea) from the Upper Devonian of Gogo, Western Australia, and the palaeoecology and affinities of the group". Special Papers in Palaeontology . 30: 249–276.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jean Vannier, Jun–Yuan Chen, Di–Ying Huang, Sylvain Charbonnier & Xiu–Qiang Wang (2006). "The Early Cambrian origin of thylacocephalan arthropods" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica . 51 (2): 201–214.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. Pates, Stephen; Lerosey-Aubril, Rudy; Daley, Allison C.; Kier, Carlo; Bonino, Enrico; Ortega-Hernández, Javier (2021-01-19). "The diverse radiodont fauna from the Marjum Formation of Utah, USA (Cambrian: Drumian)". PeerJ. 9: e10509. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10509 . ISSN   2167-8359. PMC   7821760 . PMID   33552709.
  7. 1 2 D. G. Mikulic, D. E. G. Briggs & J. Kluessendorf (1985). "A new exceptionally preserved biota from the Lower Silurian of Wisconsin, U.S.A.". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society . 311 (1148): 75–85. Bibcode:1985RSPTB.311...75M. doi:10.1098/rstb.1985.0140. JSTOR   2396972.
  8. Van Roy, Peter; Rak, Štěpán; Budil, Petr; Fatka, Oldřich (2021-04-26). Jagt, John (ed.). "Upper Ordovician Thylacocephala (Euarthropoda, Eucrustacea) from Bohemia indicate early ecological differentiation". Papers in Palaeontology. 7 (3): 1727–1751. doi:10.1002/spp2.1363. ISSN   2056-2799. S2CID   235557325.
  9. 1 2 F. R. Schram, C. H. J. Hof & F. A. Steeman (1999). "Thylacocephala (Arthropoda: Crustacea?) from the Cretaceous of Lebanon and implications for Thylacocephalan systematics". Palaeontology . 42 (5): 769–797. Bibcode:1999Palgy..42..769S. doi: 10.1111/1475-4983.00097 .
  10. The implications of a Silurian and other thylacocephalan crustaceans for the functional morphology and systematic affinities of the group
  11. F. Meek (1872). "Descriptions of new western Palaeozoic fossils mainly from the Cincinnati Group of the Lower Silurian series of Ohio". Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia . 23: 308–337.
  12. V. Van Straelen (1923). "Les mysidacés du Callovien de la Voulte−Sur−Rhône (Ardèche)". Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France . Notes et Mémoires. 23: 431–439.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 F. R. Schram (1990). "On Mazon Creek Thylacocephala". Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History . 3: 1–16. OCLC   24814481.
  14. 1 2 S. Secrétan (1983). "Une nouvelle classe fossile dans la super−classe des Crustacés: Conchyliocarida". Les Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences . 296: 437–439.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W. D. I. Rolfe (1985). "Form and function in Thylacocephala, Conchyliocarida and Concavicarida (?Crustacea): a problem of interpretation". Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh . 76 (2–3): 391–399. Bibcode:1985EESTR..76..391R. doi:10.1017/s0263593300010609. S2CID   84613876.
  16. 1 2 3 4 G. Pinna, P. Arduini, C. Pesarini & G. Teruzzi (1985). "Some controversial aspects of the morphology and anatomy of Ostenocaris cypriformis (Crustacea, Thylacocephala)". Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh . 76 (2–3): 373–379. Bibcode:1985EESTR..76..373P. doi:10.1017/s0263593300010580. S2CID   85401617.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 S. Secrétan (1985). "Conchyliocarida, a class of fossil crustaceans: relationships to Malacostraca and postulated behaviour". Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh . 76 (2–3): 381–389. Bibcode:1985EESTR..76..381S. doi:10.1017/s0263593300010592. S2CID   131035558.
  18. S. Lange, C. H. J. Hof, F. R. Schram & F. Steeman (2001). "New genus and species from the Cretaceous of Lebanon links the Thylacocephala to the Crustacea". Palaeontology . 44 (5): 905–912. Bibcode:2001Palgy..44..905L. doi: 10.1111/1475-4983.00207 . S2CID   84659286.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. P. Arduini, G. Pinna & G. Teruzzi (1980). "A new and unusual lower cirripede from Osteno in Lombardy: Ostenia cypriformis n. g. n. sp. (preliminary note)". Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museocivico di Storia Naturale di Milano . 121: 360–370.
  20. 1 2 3 A. Alessandrello, P. Arduini, P. Pinna & G. Teruzzi (1991). "New observations on the Thylacocephala (Arthropoda, Crustacea)". In A. M. Simonetta & S. Conway Morris (ed.). The Early Evolution of Metazoa and the Significance of Problematic Taxa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 245–251. ISBN   0-521-40242-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. F. Fröhlich, A. Mayrat, B. Riou & S. Secrétan (1992). "Structures rétiniennes phosphatisées dans l'oeil géant de Dollocaris, un crustacé fossile". Annales de Paléontologie . 78: 193–204.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)