Re: The Cambrian an alternative perspective - repost

From: David Campbell (bivalve@email.unc.edu)
Date: Mon Jun 12 2000 - 09:59:28 EDT

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: Numerics and Applied Apologetics"

    >3) The transition from univalved helionellid mollusks
    >(monoplacophorans) to bivalves through a group of rostroconchs in the
    >early Cambrian seems now quite well established. There are now know
    >intermediate specimens that occur in the chronological position.
    >(Gubanov, Kouchinsky, and Peel, 1999, The first evolutionary-adaptive
    >lineage within fossil molluscs: Lethaia, 32:155-157.)

    There is some debate on the exact classification of the forms. The
    monoplacophoran-bivalve transitional forms may be better classified as
    monoplacophorans than as rostroconchs. (I.e., my advisor calls them
    monoplacophorans and most people now seem to at least admit they are not
    well-developed rostroconchs.) Watsonella is the key genus, showing both
    monoplacophoran and bivalve features, as well as a bit of a feature
    sometimes interpreted as a pegma, which would tie it to rostroconchs. We
    do not consider it to be a true pegma in our cladistic analysis (in press).
    Standard rostroconchs seem out of the bivalve line, probably on their own
    dead end branch, though they survived well past the Cambrian.
    Monoplacophora is at least one class of mollusks, the ancestral stock for
    the classes of snails, clams, squid, etc. Rostroconchia is another class.

    David C.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 12 2000 - 10:00:39 EDT