1983 01 15: The conodont animal.A unique specimen of a small, elongate, soft-bodied animal from the Lower Carhoniferous of the Edinburgh district, Scotland, is described. The head expands anteriorly into two lohate 5tructures flanking a central lumen; behind this lies a conodont apparatus, apparently in situ. consisting of an aligned set of ramiform elements followed by a pair of ozarkodiniform elements and one of platform elements. From the morphology of the platform elements the animal has been identified as CIydagnathus? cf. cavusformis. Repeated structures which may represent segments are evident in the posterior part of the trunk, which bears a posterior and a caudal fin, each supported hy rays. The animal shows similarities to both chordates and chaetognaths, but the evidence supports its assignment to a separate phylum, the Conodonta. The function of the conodonts remains equivocal, but it seems more likely that they served as teeth than as internal supports.

No abstract

Three new specimens which preserve the soft parts of conodonts are described from the Lower Carboniferous of Granton, Edinburgh. The animal was apparently laterally flattened in life and the somites were V‐shaped. The nature of the preserved axial lines is equivocal; some may represent the walls of the gut. The elements of one of the new specimens show that it does not belong to Clydagnathus, to which the other soft‐bodied specimen from Granton was tentatively assigned. The possibility of a relationship between the euconodonts and the Chaetognatha is discounted. Nor do the conodonts constitute a phylum, but are a separate group of primitive jawless craniates.

Summary Here we present a set of methods for documenting (exo‐)morphology by applying autofluorescence imaging. For arthropods, but also for other taxa, autofluorescence imaging combined with composite imaging is a fast documentation method with high‐resolution capacities. Compared to conventional micro‐ and macrophotography, the illumination is much more homogenous, and structures are often better contrasted. Applying different wavelengths to the same object can additionally be used to enhance distinct structures. Autofluorescence imaging can be applied to dried and embedded specimens, but also directly on specimens within their storage liquid. This has an enormous potential for the documentation of rare specimens and especially type specimens without the need of preparation. Also for various fossils, autofluorescence can be used to enhance the contrast between the fossil and the matrix significantly, making even smallest details visible. ‘Life‐colour’ fluorescence especially is identified as a technique with great potential. It provides additional information for which otherwise more complex methods would have to be applied. The complete range of differences and variations between fluorescence macrophotography and different types of fluorescence microscopy techniques are here explored and evaluated in detail. Also future improvements are suggested. In summary, autofluorescence imaging is a powerful, easy and fast‐to‐apply tool for morphological studies.