Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dzik, J. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Behavioral and anatomical unity of the earliest burrowing animals and the cause of the "Cambrian explosion"

¹ Jerzy Dzik. Instytut Paleobiologii PAN, Twarda 51/55, 00-818 Warsaw, Poland. dzik{at}twarda.pan.pl

All interpretable trace fossils from the Ediacarian–Cambrian transition strata of northern Siberia, Ukraine, and elsewhere represent shelters of infaunal animals feeding from the sediment surface. There is a gradation of forms ranging from (1) makers of horizontal galleries in soft sand with bilobed lower surface and proboscis extended to the surface, through (2) linear or zigzag series of short, widely U-shaped burrows in firm clay with bilobed or three-lobed lower surface, to (3) series of cylindrical chambers dug completely inside the sediment but opening to its surface. At the same time, protective skeleton originated in animals living above the sediment surface. Apparently, the diversification of predators in the earliest Cambrian forced other animals to invest energy either in digging or in a protective armor ("the Verdun Syndrome"). True mud-eaters appeared later, as documented by the late Tommotian horizontal spreite structures from central Siberia. Most, if not all, of those infaunal traces of activity were produced probably by relatives of priapulid worms. It appears that body cavities and segmentation in the Metazoa (diverse already in the Ediacarian) evolved independently of, and prior to, hydraulic burrowing.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. SHEN, S. XIAO, L. DONG, C. ZHOU, and J. LIU PROBLEMATIC MACROFOSSILS FROM EDIACARAN SUCCESSIONS IN THE NORTH CHINA AND CHAIDAM BLOCKS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THEIR EVOLUTIONARY ROOTS AND BIOSTRATIGRAPHIC SIGNIFICANCE Journal of Paleontology, November 1, 2007; 81(6): 1396 - 1411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. SCHWIMMER and W. M. MONTANTE EXCEPTIONAL FOSSIL PRESERVATION IN THE CONASAUGA FORMATION, CAMBRIAN, NORTHWESTERN GEORGIA, USA Palaios, July 1, 2007; 22(4): 360 - 372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. A. MacGabhann, J. Murray, and C. Nicholas Ediacaria booleyi: weeded from the Garden of Ediacara? Geological Society, London, Special Publications, January 1, 2007; 286(1): 277 - 295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Valentine Seeing ghosts: Neoproterozoic bilaterian body plans Geological Society, London, Special Publications, January 1, 2007; 286(1): 369 - 375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. J. Vermeij Historical contingency and the purported uniqueness of evolutionary innovations PNAS, February 7, 2006; 103(6): 1804 - 1809. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]